This means that a proton or other non-elementary particle is made up of smaller particles, what happens is that fractionated at random on the impact on the accelerator, the particles are vibrating strings or condensed energy.This means that a proton or other non-elementary particle is made up of smaller particles, what happens is that fractionated at random on the impact on the accelerator, the particles are vibrating strings or condensed energy.
proton of the father and be free inside the proton before the impacting proton inside the hadron particle acceleratorproton of the father and be free inside the proton before the impacting proton inside the hadron particle accelerator
to accelerate the proton at a speed close to a light, particles composed Tamnies chelae would expand its mass-energy increases dramatically, where the quark and lepton proton dissociate the father and be free inside the proton before the proton impacting inside the hadron particle acceleratorto accelerate the proton at a speed close to a light, particles composed Tamnies chelae would expand its mass-energy increases dramatically, where the quark and lepton proton dissociate
If a proton is composed essentially of a family Quarks and leptons inside while riding in a particle accelerator at a speed very close to the light, like the proton is composed of subatomic particles, the particles are prolonged mass-energy in the inside the proton, no longer part of the proton with only travel at a speed close to a light?If a proton is composed essentially of a family Quarks and leptons inside while riding in a particle accelerator at a speed very close to the light....
Just looking down this comments page, I can see at least 3 instances of you instructing people to eat your ass and then calling them a troll. Now I don't know about others, but to me that labels you as a troll.
True. That is because others seemed to be handling the ridiculous, thoroughly-debunked claims you make about an Electric Universe. I arrived too late to really begin that discussion, so I instead pointed out your apparent willingness to have people eat your ass, and that such talk is not the way to win a debate.
No, it's because you haven't the means to participate in an intelligent discussion about the subject at hand, so you focus on inventing stories about me. You act just like an astronoger, just gaze at the stars and make up stories and expect people to take you seriously. I haven't made any "ridiculous claims", and you can't "debunk" reality. I'm not trying to win a debate, this is not a debate, I'm not going to debate you. Try to just pay attention and you might learn something.
I'm not making up stories. Your comments are there for all to see. You have said "Eat my ass, you fucking troll." at least three times to different people in this comments section alone. Anyone reading this comment can find it by clicking the "View all comments" button.
I will happily call you out on the rubbish you have spewed about the Electric Universe hypothesis if you wish, either here or in PMs. I will behave in a civil manner regardless of your own behaviour.
As I said in my last comment, I will happily call you out on the Electric Universe nonsense if you wish. I'm quite willing to start again and ignore the behaviour you have so far exhibited.
And still you say absolutely nothing about the subject at hand, instead you fixate on talking about me. To be honest it's weird and creepy.
I'm not willing to "ignore" your bad behaviour, if you insist on trying to throw baseless suppositions and unwarranted speculations about me around instead of discussing the subject at hand, I'll continue pointing it out. I've treated people exactly the way they are trying to treat me. alien8ted was suspended for his antics, I was not.
What bad behaviour of mine? I have merely pointed out the contradictions in what you say. If you can point out a single instance of me "throwing baseless suppositions and unwarranted speculations", then I will apologise.
Now, if the electric universe stuff is not the topic at hand, then what is? I am more than happy to discuss whatever it is.
Out of curiosity, who is alien8ted? I can find no comments by them on this page, although I see that they are indeed suspended.
There are no contradictions in what I say. I think you have me confused with all the big bang believers around here who claim over 95% of the universe is "unobservable", who claim "black hole" has been observed, who claim "gravity" can bend light, on and on. Not one shred of evidence is ever offered to support these claims, they are supported only by previous claims made by other people. Science is not performed by consensus or tradition.
The "einstein cross" is four objects surrounding a fifth object, and the four objects were most likely ejected from the fifth object in the center. It is not an example of "gravitational lensing".
@fertilizerspike: Did you learn to argue from Monty Python's 'Argument Sketch'? From HyperPhysics "This system is also known as Huchra's Lens, after its founder. The four separate images have the same redshift of Z= 1.695 . This suggests that they are quasar images, and in fact multiple images of the same quasar. The image is interpreted as gravitational lensing by an almost perfectly aligned galaxy for which the red shift was measured to be Z= 0.0394 ."
I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just trying to help you learn this information. I hate seeing stubborn, willful ignorance.
The objects you described have OBSERVED PHYSICAL CONNECTIONS WITH EACH OTHER. Such an observation falsifies "redshift" assumptions that "redshift" equates to distance, velocity and age. These assumptions have been falsified many times over by direct observations.
That the four objects around the central object have a high "redshift" is indicative of a YOUNG state of highly ionized matter, not indicative that the objects is much farther away than the object in the center. Again, we OBSERVE DIRECTLY that there are "bridges" of material between these five objects that is giving off x-rays. This is further verification of electrical explanations, we have an axial view of the discharge, such discharges have been reproduced in the lab.
"No, I've never heard of "FLASH measurement of the speed of light".
ht tp:/ /vuv-fel.desy. de/
"doppler shift tests"
H.E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, “An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 28 pg 215–226 (1938); JOSA 31 pg 369–374 (1941).
You also don't know that supernova light curves are time-delayed, in exact agreement with their redshift?
Your strawman version of how redshift is used is hilarious. I feel like i'm listening to a creationist explaining why he thinks radiometric dating is bogus.
What you're doing is similar to "demonstrating" cars can't drive by never putting fuel in them while you walk around looking like a professional mechanic who's baffled that it's not working.
We can infer the existence of Dark Matter from the rotation speeds of stars around galaxies: what we expected to find upon looking at galaxies is that their stars would orbit slower as you get further away. This is not the case. The velocity is more or less constant as you get further out. Therefore, we can infer that there is more matter there-a hell of a lot more, in fact-but we can't directly observe it.
The difference between expectation and observation is not called "dark matter", it's called ERROR. Gravity models don't adequately explain the shape and motion of galaxies so "black hole" was imagined in the center of every galaxy. That didn't solve the problem so "dark matter" was invented. It wasn't "inferred" it was invented out of whole cloth and sprinkled where necessary to make "gravity" models "work". It's ad hoc and bizarre, and "redshift" does not indicate velocity.
I always wonder why the narrative that dark matter was just made up is so popular, I understand it appeals to the destructive anti-intellectualism present in people like Spkey here (hurr durr profs are stupid, they think they can just make stuff up, hurr durr), but it has no basis in reality, only in the alternative reality of cranks with nonsense to peddle.
Same goes for the pathetic attempt at debunking gravitational lenses and black holes by Spikey btw.
In case you didn't realize, "dark matter" was "just made up". It was invented to "explain" why gravity models don't work to explain the shape and motion of galaxies even after "black hole" was conjured up to "explain" away the same problem. These astronogers are just gazing at stars and telling stories. They're inventing perpetual numbers of epicycles like the astronogers before them.
I just told you that the "scientists just made DM up out of thin air" narrative is an obvious lie, repetition of your articles of faith concerning this point doesn't change reality.
The only new thing (for me) you've managed to come up with, was your pathetic attempt to discredit the first confirmation of gravitational lenses. I still don't understand the point of that, since you avoided to explain the thousands of confirmations after that.
Your continued insistence that I'm lying is unconvincing. I never claimed "scientists" invented "dark matter", I said astronogers invented "dark matter" to explain why gravity models keep failing to accurately describe the shape and motion of galaxies. Your repetition of your articles of faith concerning this point doesn't change reality.
There is no reason to "discredit" this notion of "gravitational lensing", the burden of proof is on those making the claims it exists.
And it wasn't just "dark matter" that astronogers conjured up to "explain" why gravity models keep failing. The notion of "black hole" was used to "explain" why galaxies don't obey "gravity" models. Instead of astronogers letting the observations falsify their beliefs, they summoned "black hole" in every galaxy. That still didn't "explain" away enough, so they invented "dark matter", which broke "big bang", so "dark energy" was invented to "explain" that under the rug.
Further, there are no verified instances of "gravitational lensing" in space. There are many claims (unverified) that this "lensing" can be observed in many places, yet none of these claims have been verified by in situ observation or experimental modeling. In cases where this "lensing" might be taking place, it is readily explained by electromagnetic forces. There is abundant experimental verification of electromagnetic forces bending light, none for "gravity".
"In cases where this "lensing" might be taking place, it is readily explained by electromagnetic forces"
No it's not you friggin' idiot, EM doesn't bend light the same way as gravity does. If anyone thought the lensing phenomena were caused by EM it would be trivial to distinguish it from a gravitational lens.
Wait, this is where the conspiracy comes in again right? Ahahahaha you crack me up. 5 Lies and counting...
Oh, also, eat my ass, you fucking troll. My lie count is zero. I haven't bothered to count your lies, I'm simply correcting your errors. Given that, it's likely that my responses are directly proportional to the number of errors you make.
Your lack of knowledge of how science works ensures that you are incapable of showing any lies from my side, even if i had lied here.
It's really quite cute that you've convinced yourself that EM forces bend light in the same way we observe gravity doing this. Unfortunately, that's not true, and the thousands upon thousands of known gravity lens phenomena can't be explained with your hilarious contention that EM forces bend light like we already know gravity does.
You're the one who clearly doesn't understand how science "works". Science is not practiced by consensus, as you've suggested several times. Science is also utterly divorced from the irrelevant political process known as "peer review", something you fail to acknowledge.
It's really astonishing how many people like you have bought into the "big bang" creationist myth, as well as "black hole", "dark matter", "dark energy" and a menagerie of other fictional beasts astronogers love.
No experiment has ever verified this notion you keep espousing that "gravity" can have any effect on light of any kind. We know from experiment, though, that magnetic fields can bend light. The effect is known as the "faraday effect". Go look it up. Further, no "lensing" in space has ever been verified by in situ observation, it is all assumed, and many of these assumptions are based on ignorance and cherished fables that are false.
Light is electromagnetic radiation. As such, it is affected by electromagnetic fields. It can be bent with electromagnetic fields, it can be polarized by electromagnetic fields. See Birkeland's "terrella" experiments that reproduced planetary rings for an example of electromagnetic fields in plasma bending and polarizing light.
Meanwhile amateur astronomers discover planets using gravitational lensing effects that get verified by professional observatories using other methods.
Oh, maybe it was just a coincidence that the predicted planet was there, right? Either that, or it's the conspiracy again! Keep the faith my friend... LOL
Astronogers routinely imagine they see "gravitational lensing". The imagination of astronogers is not powerful enough to conjure it into existence, though. To date no in situ observations have verified any "lensing" in space of any kind. If such lensing is ever verified, it is readily explained by electromagnetic forces. No experiment has ever verified the notion that "gravity" can bend light.
Like i said, if people can actually make discoveries using gravitational lensing effects, which are then confirmed using other methods, i'd say you've been proven wrong pretty conclusively.
The question at hand is, how do you feel being a lying fanboy for crazy cranks?
These "discoveries" (that you haven't positively identified) are almost certainly not contingent on "gravitational lensing" being valid. If any such lensing is taking place, it is readily explained by electromagnetic forces, which are known to be capable of bending light ("zeeman effect"), no experimental verification of the notion that "gravity" can bend light exists. You haven't proven any of the claims I've made are wrong, anyone who wants to can do the research and confirm it.
The zeeman effect will not get electromagnetism to bend light. That's only what cranks apparently told you, and you bought into it because it confirmed your existing bias.
Furthermore, Birkeland's terrella and the faraday effect do not involve electromagnetism bending light either. Could you please stay on-topic and at least make an effort to support the claims you're making here?
As for verification of exoplants, it is not dependent on the idea of "gravitational lensing" being valid. Keep in mind, there is absolutely zero experimental verification of this notion that "gravity" can bend light, while we have abundant verification of the "zeeman effect", which is electromagnetic fields bending light and splitting spectral lines as well as polarizing light, the "faraday effect". Look them up, you might learn something. I doubt it, but it's possible.
1. The discovery of expoplanets is not contingent on the capacity of "gravity" to bend light. If you think it is, explain why. I'm sure once you do that I can explain to you precisely why you're wrong. I want to help you learn this information.
2. There is a long history among astronogers of "false alarms" dealing with exoplanets. The inferential methods used by astronogers today rely on unproven assumptions that are demonstrably false. They will only ever be right by accident.
"The discovery of expoplanets is not contingent on the capacity of "gravity" to bend light."
Obviously this one was, otherwise i wouldn't have pointed it out to you, you clown. Apparently you're all talk and just as confined to your own little world where everything confirms your biases as i thought.
That's why science works with peer review boards btw. But you already knew that, otherwise you wouldn't be so disgruntled with them.
Clearly it's your belief that this is the case, but your belief is erroneous. I'm not a clown, you shit-fucking piss worm.
Science has absolutely nothing to do with peer review and vice versa. Peer review is an irrelevant political process, not part of science. I'm not "disgruntled", I just recognize that where you clearly do not.
There is absolutely no experimental verification of this idea that "gravity" can bend light. There is abundant evidence that electromagnetic forces can bend light ("zeeman effect). There is also abundant evidence electromagnetic forces can polarize light ("faraday effect"). There is no such evidence with respect to gravity causing either of these two effects. Your continued insistence that "gravity" can have such an influence is speculative and demonstrably false.
The concept of "gravitational lensing" is not useful, it is a speculative and demonstrably false notion that is only going to lead to blind guessing. No experimental verification for the idea "gravity" can bend light exists. Relying on this supposed phenomenon to infer anything about the universe remotely is going to lead to blind guessing, which is only ever going to be right by accident.
Your belief system is unfounded sorry to upset your apple cart.
There is absolutely no experimental verification of this idea that "gravity" can bend light. There is abundant evidence that electromagnetic forces can bend light ("zeeman effect). There is also abundant evidence electromagnetic forces can polarize light ("faraday effect"). There is no such evidence with respect to gravity causing either of these two effects. Your continued insistence that "gravity" can have such an influence is speculative and demonstrably false.
Clearly it's your belief that this is the case, but your belief is erroneous. I'm not a clown, you shit-fucking piss worm.
Science has absolutely nothing to do with peer review and vice versa. Peer review is an irrelevant political process, not part of science. I'm not "disgruntled", I just recognize that where you clearly do not.
There is absolutely no experimental verification of this idea that "gravity" can bend light. There is abundant evidence that electromagnetic forces can bend light ("zeeman effect). There is also abundant evidence electromagnetic forces can polarize light ("faraday effect"). There is no such evidence with respect to gravity causing either of these two effects. Your continued insistence that "gravity" can have such an influence is speculative and demonstrably false.
The concept of "gravitational lensing" is not useful, it is a speculative and demonstrably false notion that is only going to lead to blind guessing. No experimental verification for the idea "gravity" can bend light exists. Relying on this supposed phenomenon to infer anything about the universe remotely is going to lead to blind guessing, which is only ever going to be right by accident.
Your belief system is unfounded sorry to upset your apple cart.
Also, the zeeman effect is not related at all. There's a QM effect called Delbruck scattering, but it doesn't affect light, it affects the components of light after a photon is broken down, also it's such a miniscule effect, it hasn't even actually been measured yet. You just lied some more, AGAIN.
Stop assuming everyone is as stupid as you are. Please cite me just ONE (1, uno, un) piece of evidence showing electromagnetism bending light.
The "zeeman effect" is the phenomenon of electromagnetic fields bending light which causes a splitting of spectral lines. This is one of the lines of evidence that falsifies "redshift" assumptions made by astronogers, due to the observed quantitized nature of the "redshift". Electromagnetic forces are known to have these effects on light, the same can not be said of "gravity". I haven't lied, you're just a contrarian troll, eat my ass.
Also, your claim about "Delbruck scattering" is typical of shade tree "quantum mechanics". They claim their pet philosophy adequately explains a tremendous web of complex and interrelated phenomena that WILL NEVER BE OBSERVED OR VERIFIED BY ANY MEANS. It's ludicrous, these people are snake oil salesmen, and you are extremely gullible to have fallen for all the nonsense. Come join us in the twenty-first century.
Aah, you dislike QM as well, what a surprise. I figured you'd jump on it since it's actual peer reviewed science, contains the word light, and something about direction. Which, from my experience, means to you that it's the holy grail of EM bending light y'all.
I don't assume you're stupid, I conclude you're stupid, based on the information you've given me. Everything you say suggests you are an ignorant imbecile. I've cited the "zeeman effect", which is the effect of bending light and splitting it into spectral lines. This effect is similar to the effect of a glass prism, which splits light into spectral lines by bending it.
I don't assume you're stupid, I conclude you're stupid, based on the information you've given me. Everything you say suggests you are an ignorant imbecile. I've cited the "zeeman effect", which is the effect of bending light and splitting it into spectral lines. This effect is similar to the effect of a glass prism, which splits light into spectral lines by bending it.
I don't assume you're stupid, I conclude you're stupid, based on the information you've given me. Everything you say suggests you are an ignorant imbecile. I've cited the "zeeman effect", which is the effect of bending light and splitting it into spectral lines. This effect is similar to the effect of a glass prism, which splits light into spectral lines by bending it.
If you honestly think that bending light as gravity demonstrably does is the same thing as sending it through a prism, you're even more stupid then i thought. I hope you know the crank who told you this nonsense, 'cause i wouldn't take this crap and chew him out for making you look like an idiot on the internets.
Can we agree that the LHC has some of the most powerful magnets on the planet btw?
Your belief that "gravity" can bend light is utterly bereft of experimental verification. It amounts to no more than wishful thinking and flights of fancy.
You are free to engage in this approximation of thinking that you continually demonstrate, that won't make you any more right than you are now, which is to say not at all right. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Your belief that "gravity" can bend light is utterly bereft of experimental verification. It amounts to no more than wishful thinking and flights of fancy.
You are free to engage in this approximation of thinking that you continually demonstrate, that won't make you any more right than you are now, which is to say not at all right. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Oh and btw, if you don't want to rely on QM, you can't really be citing the zeeman effect to support your claims, as it depends on the existence of quanta.
Bet you're feeling pretty dumb right about now eh? This is probably a good time to ask me to do you some more sexual favors.
The "zeeman effect" is the phenomenon of electromagnetic fields bending light which causes a splitting of spectral lines. This is one of the lines of evidence that falsifies "redshift" assumptions made by astronogers, due to the observed quantitized nature of the "redshift". Electromagnetic forces are known to have these effects on light, the same can not be said of "gravity". I haven't lied, you're just a contrarian troll, eat my ass.
Also, your claim about "Delbruck scattering" is typical of shade tree "quantum mechanics". They claim their pet philosophy adequately explains a tremendous web of complex and interrelated phenomena that WILL NEVER BE OBSERVED OR VERIFIED BY ANY MEANS. It's ludicrous, these people are snake oil salesmen, and you are extremely gullible to have fallen for all the nonsense. Come join us in the twenty-first century.
The "zeeman effect" is the phenomenon of electromagnetic fields bending light which causes a splitting of spectral lines. This is one of the lines of evidence that falsifies "redshift" assumptions made by astronogers, due to the observed quantitized nature of the "redshift". Electromagnetic forces are known to have these effects on light, the same can not be said of "gravity". I haven't lied, you're just a contrarian troll, eat my ass.
Also, your claim about "Delbruck scattering" is typical of shade tree "quantum mechanics". They claim their pet philosophy adequately explains a tremendous web of complex and interrelated phenomena that WILL NEVER BE OBSERVED OR VERIFIED BY ANY MEANS. It's ludicrous, these people are snake oil salesmen, and you are extremely gullible to have fallen for all the nonsense. Come join us in the twenty-first century.
Unless you're defining "intellectualism" as being educated far in excess of your intelligence, you're just standing up straw men again. It is possible to teach an idiot words he doesn't understand, and you illustrate that precisely.
There is nothing fantastical about the notion that 99% of the universe is plasma, or that plasmas are dominated by electromagnetic forces, not "gravity". The universe is dominated by electromagnetic forces on every scale and at every distance.
As for "gravitational lenses" and "black holes", there's no need to debunk them, the burden of proof is on the people claiming these preposterous things exist. So far their attempts to verify that have met with exactly zero success.
However, this doesn't mean we can't detect it through other means. Links don't work in comments, so I will PM you with the source. It is a NASA picture of the day from May 16th 2007, which shows dark matter superimposed over an image to explain the gravitational magnification of the galaxies behind it.
Imagining that what we observe in space is "magnified" assumes facts not in evidence. This "dark matter" was invented in ad hoc fashion to "fix" gravity models because they couldn't accurately describe the shape and motion of galaxies. After "black hole" was imagined in the center of galaxies to "fix" it, there were still glaring defects, defects which were smoothed over with "dark matter", which conveniently exists only to "fix" gravity models.
As for gravity itself, which from your use of quotation marks I assume you don't believe exists...
I'm afraid there is no question of the existence of gravity, or it's ability to bend light. Shortly after World War 1, Arthur Eddington went to the Island of Principe to observe a solar eclipse. During the eclipse he took photos which showed stars visible which should have been hidden behind the sun. This showed that the light of the stars had bent around the sun by it's gravity.
You don't have to be afraid, just because you don't question gravity. I'm sure you would have been one of the people who didn't question "flat Earth", also.
That attraction exists in the universe is undeniable. That "gravity" is the cause is speculative. We can not generate, amplify, block or manipulate this "gravity" in any way, nor can we directly observe it, yet you say it's "real". You are wrong. Eddington's experiment was a fraud, he cited data in excess of his capacity.
The instruments Eddington used (in simple observation, not experiment) weren't capable of providing the accuracy he cited. In short, he invented data. If you know of some EXPERIMENTS that show "gravity" can bend light, feel free to cite them here. Eddington's "experiment" was nothing of the kind, and it has been known to be a fraud almost since its inception.
"Arthur Eddington's selective presentation of data from the 1919 eclipse so that it supposedly supported "Einstein's" general relativity theory is surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century. His lavish support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington was less interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning Einstein the king of science."
Eddington's data was fraudulent, and Einstein was a fraud and plagiarist.
What's interesting is that, even if Eddington's data hadn't been utterly fraudulent, no attempt has ever been made to rule out other causes for this "lensing", when electromagnetic forces are KNOWN to be able to bend light, as well as polarize it, both these effects have been verified by experiment. This imaginary "gravity" has never been shown by experiment to have any effect on light of any kind. Einstein worshipers perform "thought experiments".
Provide a respectable source showing that Eddington's experiment was a fraud. Then, if you manage that, please explain away the fact that Einstein's model of gravity is actually used by real people who send real spacecraft up and plot their trajectories.
I have sent a PM with the original 1915 paper by Einstein, plus a few of the modern tests demonstrating it, with peer-reviewed sources to back myself up.
The Eclipse Data of 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science
by Richard Moody, Jr.
For one thing, Einstein didn't develop any "model of gravity", he plagiarized it wholesale from the published works of actual physicists. That this has been ignored for a century is testament to the lack of scientific rigor among self-proclaimed "scientists".
What "wealth of evidence" do you have that they were wrong? Whoever provided it would win a Nobel Prize.
As it happens, Einstein and Eddington were off slightly, and the theory has been revised since, as all theories are. They were, however, at least accurate. I have already sent you a peer-reviewed scientific paper showing this. Maybe you should actually give it a read.
The idea that matter "curves" space, and time, has never been verified, despite countless efforts to do so. It's a nonsensical idea, space and time are virtual coordinate systems invented by human minds, not something real you can manipulate or "curve". Reality has no effect on "space" or "time", they are imaginary constructs.
There is abundant evidence in the public record that everything Einstein published had previously been published by actual physicists. He was an incorrigible plagiarist.
I've already address the paper you cited. I've also addressed the irrelevancy of peer review. It is not only irrelevant, it's been shown to reinforce common bias and error instead of eliminating them, it causes stagnation in science, it is merely a political process, not part of science.
You claim "there are no modern tests" to demonstrate the various predictions of Einstein's model. I have already sent you an image in the PM entitled "Sources...", which shows galaxies with their appearance affected by gravitational magnification. Furthermore, in my PM entitled "Sources 2" I have provided many peer-reviewed journals which detail relativistic time gains in GPS satellites.
What you cite is an interpretation of an observation, an interpretation which I hold is incorrect. Where you see "gravitational lensing", I see a plasma pinch. The difference is we can and do model plasma pinches in the lab, so we can study them, and find ways to detect and verify them remotely. Your nonsensical idea of "gravitational lensing" offers no such possibility of verification, despite a century of attempts.
You haven't provided "many peer reviewed journals", as you describe. You provided two peer-reviewed articles about two different subjects. A paper citing the observed inaccuracies of clocks in orbit is not "proof" that the Einstein worshipers are right about matter "curving" space or that relative motion between two objects can affect one of those objects but not the other, depending on which one you imagine being stationary. It's utter nonsense, why can't you see that.
Where did I say that we use relativistic effects to plot the trajectories of spacecraft?
When I said that below, I was referring to gravity. Use of Einstein's model of gravity is essential in plotting trajectories of spacecraft, as it allows us to take into consideration a few aspects that would not show up in Newton's model.
So by implication "Newton's model" is wrong. So you're saying Newton was wrong about "gravity"? You'd be right, if you said that, but of course you can reconcile it simultaneously being right and wrong, somehow.
When it comes to "relativity", as most people understand the term, much of it is just philosophical gibberish. Imagining space is "curved" by matter is a convenient fiction to visualize the phenomenon, it's like the bible, not to be taken literally.
Further, you ignore things like the "pioneer anomaly", where Einstein worshipers offer no explanation, or bizarre explanations with ad hoc phenomena invented solely to describe the observations.
Richard Moody Jr Is supposedly a geologist, although I suspect, from his views on plate tectonics, that he got his degree at a diploma-mill of some kind. Even so, physics is not his area of expertise and my scepticism of his abilities is further increased by the fact that he advocates Cold Fusion and has appeared on radio shows which take UFO sightings seriously. Clearly the man's work has never made it through peer-review.
You're very good at demonstrating logical fallacies. Nice job.
First you try to cast doubt on his degrees. Then you claim he's not an "expert". Then you draw erroneous links between unrelated ideas he may or may not have espoused and to top it off make the bald claim that his work is not "peer-reviewed". None of that does anything to challenge the information he's presented. Well done, you managed to leave one of my posts entirely unchallenged, how generous of you!
Finally, I should leave you with a crucial point: it does not matter in the slightest if the Eddington eclipse experiment was a hoax or not. The evidence collected since then still exclusively supports the theory.
No experiment has ever verified the more absurd claims of "relativity", such as "curvature of space-time", "time dilation", "gravitational lensing", "frame dragging", etcetera.
Why do you lie so much? It's not helping your cause you know, do you realize an 8 year old can fact check your claims here and easily determine them to be false?
Is this kind of trolling what it takes for cranks to get people to buy their books nowadays? I hope someone is paying you for being this stupid, because, if not... you probably are in need of medical attention.
You don't have to hate yourself you know, there's nothing wrong with being gay. I'm just saying, since most people who use slurs like you do are gay themselves, and that's a very dangerous attitude to have in that case.
People got nobel prizes for demonstrating the very things you claims have never been demonstrated, they have the documentation. And what do you have... oh right, no understanding of redshift nor of the plentiful evidence for grav. lenses and a very big mouth.
Winning prizes isn't part of science. You appear to have faith in the "redshift" assumptions that astronogers make. Those assumptions do not stand up to scrutiny, they are demonstrably false. All the claims I've made are supported by empirical referents and experimental verification.
You already demonstrated to be unfamiliar with the concept of redshift and how it's used in astronomy. Trying to continue on this point is just as dumb as your arrogant assertions about gravity lenses.
No amount of trolling about faith or so called assumptions will convince anyone of your arguments. Either provide the peer reviewed papers or stick to posting in the uncritical echo chambers where you came from.
On the contrary, I've not only demonstrated I'm familiar with how "redshift" is "used" by astronogers, I've also explained the fallacy of doing so. This "redshift" is no indicator of distance, recessional velocity or how far "back in time" an object is. Halton Arp showed that those assumptions were false.
The assertions I've made about "gravitational lensing" are absolutely true. You don't want to believe it, that's the problem.
"You don't want to believe it, that's the problem"
Like all rational people, i require evidence before believing things are true. Even then, absolute truth doesn't come in to it, things are true on a provisional basis, until better evidence come along. You have demonstrated to to be hilariously wrong on numerous occasions.
Thanks for FINALLY referring to a source for your ridiculous assertions. I'm having a great laugh going over Arp's writings.
You believe in "big bang" in the absence of evidence as well as "black hole", "dark matter", "dark energy" and a host of other creatures imagined by astronogers. You seem to base your beliefs on faith and hero worship.
Nobody has ever demonstrated that any of the claims I've made are wrong. Your continued insistence that this information has been refuted is laughable.
I've given you many sources of information to verify the claims I've made, you ignore them, like astronogers do.
Call it "conspiracy" if you want, I just think you're incredibly ignorant. How can I be a "sore loser", I haven't lost anything. I don't care if you laugh at these ideas, they're still valid and you're still an idiot. As for "peer review", though it is an irrelevant political process, there is much peer reviewed data on these subjects that support exactly the claims I've made here. Your ignorance is no defense. I've tried many times to help you learn this information.
You have lost a lot of time dedicating your life to unprovable hypotheses and denying the existance of allready proven facts, such as gravitational lensing.
But since you are an eccentric closeminded coconut, you wouldn't understand that not all minorities are right.
BTW FYI the word "astronogers"... ppl can track you by that word.
I haven't suggested a single hypotheses that's "unprovable". Further, all the claims I made are backed up by strong experimental verification. You see this as a problem because you have memorized a set of incoherent and contradictory fables that are starkly different than observable reality.
The idea of "gravitational lensing" is preposterous on its face, and defies over a century of direct observation and experimental verification. You are simply wrong, as are all astronogers.
"The idea of "gravitational lensing" is preposterous on its face, and defies over a century of direct observation and experimental verification. You are simply wrong, as are all astronogers."
You're demonstrably a lying coward. Lensing is common, and can't be explained with the ad-hoc cobbled together effects you cited. Amateurs with 16" scopes can even see the lensing going on around the Abell supercluster from the ground.
Given your belief in "big bang", "black hole" and a host of other imaginary constructs in the absence of any evidence, your claims that you are rational or that you base your beliefs on evidence fall flat with me.
Call it "conspiracy" if you want, I just think you're incredibly ignorant. How can I be a "sore loser", I haven't lost anything. I don't care if you laugh at these ideas, they're still valid and you're still an idiot. As for "peer review", though it is an irrelevant political process, there is much peer reviewed data on these subjects that support exactly the claims I've made here. Your ignorance is no defense. I've tried many times to help you learn this information.
Call it "conspiracy" if you want, I just think you're incredibly ignorant. How can I be a "sore loser", I haven't lost anything. I don't care if you laugh at these ideas, they're still valid and you're still an idiot. As for "peer review", though it is an irrelevant political process, there is much peer reviewed data on these subjects that support exactly the claims I've made here. Your ignorance is no defense. I've tried many times to help you learn this information.
"Your ignorance is no defense. I've tried many times to help you learn this information."
As i've said before, and as you've ignored before, the information you point at DOES NOT support your claims, worse, it depends on science you claim is false, there is no consistency in your explanations. Your claims are impotent as any casual observer can determine based on the information YOU provided.
Stop being an obvious liar, and just explain why you're clinging to your dogma.
Given your belief in "big bang", "black hole" and a host of other imaginary constructs in the absence of any evidence, your claims that you are rational or that you base your beliefs on evidence fall flat with me.
You don't even try to defend your silly assertions, all you can do is repeat your copy/paste chants, completely disregarding the reality outside your comfortable bubble. Case in point:
- Citing effects that don't even remotely support your retarded assertions.
I don't "try to defend silly assertions" because I haven't made any silly assertions. Your ignorance truly knows no bounds.
You're the one completely disregarding reality. You disregard over 99% of the observable universe, choosing instead to imagine that the vast majority of the universe is for some reason unobservable and strange in defiance of known, verified physical principles and laws. You are delusional, go educate yourself before you run your mouth any more.
I don't "try to defend silly assertions" because I haven't made any silly assertions. Your ignorance truly knows no bounds.
You're the one completely disregarding reality. You disregard over 99% of the observable universe, choosing instead to imagine that the vast majority of the universe is for some reason unobservable and strange in defiance of known, verified physical principles and laws. You are delusional, go educate yourself before you run your mouth any more.
Your trolling is horrible. You bring shame to the art.
Here's what you need to work on: Instead of being dead wrong on everything, sprinkle in some actual facts with your nonsense so you come off as someone who might have some idea of what they're talking about. If your goal is to confuse people with misinformation, you need to present the trivial things correctly. If someone agrees with you on one thing, they'll trust the jibberish bullshit you follow up with.
Eat my ass, you fucking troll. I'm not trolling, maybe that's why you think it's "horrible", because it's non-existent.
I haven't stated anything that's wrong, you're just exceedingly ignorant. My goal is to educate people, not confuse them with a bunch of imaginary bullshit like "big bang" or "black hole".
If you don't want to fess up, I understand. The first rule of trolling is to sell it like you believe it.
I'm hereby calling out fertilizerspike. He's not being truthful at all with his posts, and he only wants to irritate people with obvious ignorance.
Like I said, your comments would have drawn in more of a reaction if they weren't 100% bullshit nonsense. Sprinkle in some undeniable facts here and there so you actually come off as a real idiot who believes that crap.
This is why you fail, I'm not trolling, I'm just trying to help people learn.
Nothing I've said is wrong, every bit of it is supported by experimental verification. If you doubt it, feel free to call attention to any specific thing you think I've said that's wrong.
There's nothing in my posts BUT facts, you're simply too ignorant to realize that. You have a head full of fables and bad wiring. I don't blame you, I blame the steady torrent of bullshit fed to you through your television disguised as "science". Unverifiable notions are not scientific. Unwarranted and baseless speculation is not fact. If you doubt anything I've said, cite it specifically here or shut your fat fucking mouth about it.
Debating the things you said is like debating a child on the existence of Santa. It's a pointless exercise meant only to waste my time while you get some form of enjoyment. That's all trolling is.
I guess I COULD waste my time sitting here debating nonsense with science, but it's pointless because if you truly are this stupid, then nothing I say and nothing I present will get through to you. You'll argue for the sake of arguing, even when undeniable truth is presented.
I didn't ask you to debate. This is not a debate. I'm not going to debate you. I'm trying to educate you. If you have issues with anything I've said, feel free to explain it here. If not, shut your fat fucking mouth about it.
Could you share your opinion on QM in more detail?
Why is there a serious lack of light being bent at the LHC's magnets? Wouldn't the fiber optic networks relaying your internet communication be susceptible to the strong electromagnetic fields they routinely pass through in tightly packed datacenters and IP traffic exchanges?
Did you ever consider you might not be smart enough to declare everyone else stupid for daring to examine your claims?
I didn't ask you to debate. This is not a debate. I'm not going to debate you. I'm trying to educate you. If you have issues with anything I've said, feel free to explain it here. If not, shut your fat fucking mouth about it.
There's nothing in my posts BUT facts, you're simply too ignorant to realize that. You have a head full of fables and bad wiring. I don't blame you, I blame the steady torrent of bullshit fed to you through your television disguised as "science". Unverifiable notions are not scientific. Unwarranted and baseless speculation is not fact. If you doubt anything I've said, cite it specifically here or shut your fat fucking mouth about it.
I didn't ask you to debate. This is not a debate. I'm not going to debate you. I'm trying to educate you. If you have issues with anything I've said, feel free to explain it here. If not, shut your fat fucking mouth about it.
There's nothing in my posts BUT facts, you're simply too ignorant to realize that. You have a head full of fables and bad wiring. I don't blame you, I blame the steady torrent of bullshit fed to you through your television disguised as "science". Unverifiable notions are not scientific. Unwarranted and baseless speculation is not fact. If you doubt anything I've said, cite it specifically here or shut your fat fucking mouth about it.
There's nothing in my posts BUT facts, you're simply too ignorant to realize that. You have a head full of fables and bad wiring. I don't blame you, I blame the steady torrent of bullshit fed to you through your television disguised as "science". Unverifiable notions are not scientific. Unwarranted and baseless speculation is not fact. If you doubt anything I've said, cite it specifically here or shut your fat fucking mouth about it.
I'll thank you to keep your fucking opinions about me to yourself. This is not the place for you to discuss them. Save your opinions about me for the next time your mother comes down to the basement to do your laundry.
You believe in "big bang" in the absence of evidence as well as "black hole", "dark matter", "dark energy" and a host of other creatures imagined by astronogers. You seem to base your beliefs on faith and hero worship.
Nobody has ever demonstrated that any of the claims I've made are wrong. Your continued insistence that this information has been refuted is laughable.
I've given you many sources of information to verify the claims I've made, you ignore them, like astronogers do.
You believe in "big bang" in the absence of evidence as well as "black hole", "dark matter", "dark energy" and a host of other creatures imagined by astronogers. You seem to base your beliefs on faith and hero worship.
Nobody has ever demonstrated that any of the claims I've made are wrong. Your continued insistence that this information has been refuted is laughable.
I've given you many sources of information to verify the claims I've made, you ignore them, like astronogers do
Lol. You are the worst electric universe troll ever, as soon as you get questions that will show you're wrong, you hide like the intellectual coward you are.
I've looked at your claims and, like any other 10 year old could, easily determined that the effects you cite do not support your claims. Even worse, you cited effects that depend on science that you yourself regard as untrue. We're still awaiting your explanation for this obvious inconsistency in your thinking.
You've made a lot of mistakes, but since it's mistakes involving your personal beliefs about me, I won't bother to correct them here.
You seem unable to address any of the evidence I cited or the claims I've made specifically, all you seem to be able to do is make bald blanket assurances that everything I say is wrong. I doubt many people find that sort of thing convincing so you're just wasting time.
Are you a troll from up is down world or something?
Compulsive liars that won't present any evidence besides referring to effects that don't do what you interpret them to do really shouldn't be loose on the internet. Take your medication pal, and stop making stuff up about what you think i believe, i know you have to reach for the emergency brake once in a while and try to paint me in some way that pleases the madman in your head, but tr
Great video
TheSanovita 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the vibe
TheSanovita 3 weeks ago
wow awesome
andreeaweed 3 weeks ago
Mantap!! Goods Vishual Video!!
Spasatcom 3 weeks ago
Fantastic!!..
directorygod 4 weeks ago
Very Cool Video!!..
ngeliatduit 4 weeks ago
I'm glad I found your video
MyDavidsun 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
two words:
FASCINATION
INSPIRATION
gadionson1 1 month ago
This means that a proton or other non-elementary particle is made up of smaller particles, what happens is that fractionated at random on the impact on the accelerator, the particles are vibrating strings or condensed energy.This means that a proton or other non-elementary particle is made up of smaller particles, what happens is that fractionated at random on the impact on the accelerator, the particles are vibrating strings or condensed energy.
johanna25100 7 months ago
proton of the father and be free inside the proton before the impacting proton inside the hadron particle acceleratorproton of the father and be free inside the proton before the impacting proton inside the hadron particle accelerator
johanna25100 7 months ago
to accelerate the proton at a speed close to a light, particles composed Tamnies chelae would expand its mass-energy increases dramatically, where the quark and lepton proton dissociate the father and be free inside the proton before the proton impacting inside the hadron particle acceleratorto accelerate the proton at a speed close to a light, particles composed Tamnies chelae would expand its mass-energy increases dramatically, where the quark and lepton proton dissociate
johanna25100 7 months ago
If a proton is composed essentially of a family Quarks and leptons inside while riding in a particle accelerator at a speed very close to the light, like the proton is composed of subatomic particles, the particles are prolonged mass-energy in the inside the proton, no longer part of the proton with only travel at a speed close to a light?If a proton is composed essentially of a family Quarks and leptons inside while riding in a particle accelerator at a speed very close to the light....
johanna25100 7 months ago
Im new to this LHC thing and to be honest im still confuse with this.did they really make a mini universe or what?anyone can explained me?
luwiz 1 year ago
Its just awesome!
dvybeyond 1 year ago
Argh! Texture duplication at 2:50. Amazing computer model though :]
MilletGtr 1 year ago
Nice video. What was the application used for the animation?
KalimaShaktide 1 year ago
Who are the 8 asswipes who disliked this?
TooferMan 1 year ago
Amazing
Eremis87 1 year ago
two words:
FASCINATION
INSPIRATION
BeTheChange408 1 year ago
Steam in turbulent flow does nuclear fusion.
JonThm 1 year ago
I love it how the troll comes back, promoting this video even further.
Pretty sure it will be on the front page of "science and Tech" tomorrow.
Thank you fertilizrspike.
ScienceIsKnowledge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScienceIsKnowledge
Eat my ass, you fucking troll.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Just looking down this comments page, I can see at least 3 instances of you instructing people to eat your ass and then calling them a troll. Now I don't know about others, but to me that labels you as a troll.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
Your comment is exactly what I'd expect from a troll. Eat my ass.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
And what aspect of my comment labels me as a troll?
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
You said absolutely nothing about the subject at hand. In contrast you appear to have plenty to say about me, even if it is misinformed speculation.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
True. That is because others seemed to be handling the ridiculous, thoroughly-debunked claims you make about an Electric Universe. I arrived too late to really begin that discussion, so I instead pointed out your apparent willingness to have people eat your ass, and that such talk is not the way to win a debate.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
No, it's because you haven't the means to participate in an intelligent discussion about the subject at hand, so you focus on inventing stories about me. You act just like an astronoger, just gaze at the stars and make up stories and expect people to take you seriously. I haven't made any "ridiculous claims", and you can't "debunk" reality. I'm not trying to win a debate, this is not a debate, I'm not going to debate you. Try to just pay attention and you might learn something.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
I'm not making up stories. Your comments are there for all to see. You have said "Eat my ass, you fucking troll." at least three times to different people in this comments section alone. Anyone reading this comment can find it by clicking the "View all comments" button.
I will happily call you out on the rubbish you have spewed about the Electric Universe hypothesis if you wish, either here or in PMs. I will behave in a civil manner regardless of your own behaviour.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
And still you have nothing to add to the discussion at hand so you instead fixate on talking about me. Eat my ass, you fucking troll.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
As I said in my last comment, I will happily call you out on the Electric Universe nonsense if you wish. I'm quite willing to start again and ignore the behaviour you have so far exhibited.
Would you like to discuss it? I'm game to do so.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
And still you say absolutely nothing about the subject at hand, instead you fixate on talking about me. To be honest it's weird and creepy.
I'm not willing to "ignore" your bad behaviour, if you insist on trying to throw baseless suppositions and unwarranted speculations about me around instead of discussing the subject at hand, I'll continue pointing it out. I've treated people exactly the way they are trying to treat me. alien8ted was suspended for his antics, I was not.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
What bad behaviour of mine? I have merely pointed out the contradictions in what you say. If you can point out a single instance of me "throwing baseless suppositions and unwarranted speculations", then I will apologise.
Now, if the electric universe stuff is not the topic at hand, then what is? I am more than happy to discuss whatever it is.
Out of curiosity, who is alien8ted? I can find no comments by them on this page, although I see that they are indeed suspended.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
There are no contradictions in what I say. I think you have me confused with all the big bang believers around here who claim over 95% of the universe is "unobservable", who claim "black hole" has been observed, who claim "gravity" can bend light, on and on. Not one shred of evidence is ever offered to support these claims, they are supported only by previous claims made by other people. Science is not performed by consensus or tradition.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike: I don't wish to get between to ladies and their handbags, but Einstein cross is great to look at and may settle a few issues.
MrAugustNidor 1 year ago
@MrAugustNidor
The "einstein cross" is four objects surrounding a fifth object, and the four objects were most likely ejected from the fifth object in the center. It is not an example of "gravitational lensing".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike: Did you learn to argue from Monty Python's 'Argument Sketch'? From HyperPhysics "This system is also known as Huchra's Lens, after its founder. The four separate images have the same redshift of Z= 1.695 . This suggests that they are quasar images, and in fact multiple images of the same quasar. The image is interpreted as gravitational lensing by an almost perfectly aligned galaxy for which the red shift was measured to be Z= 0.0394 ."
MrAugustNidor 1 year ago
@MrAugustNidor
I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just trying to help you learn this information. I hate seeing stubborn, willful ignorance.
The objects you described have OBSERVED PHYSICAL CONNECTIONS WITH EACH OTHER. Such an observation falsifies "redshift" assumptions that "redshift" equates to distance, velocity and age. These assumptions have been falsified many times over by direct observations.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@MrAugustNidor
That the four objects around the central object have a high "redshift" is indicative of a YOUNG state of highly ionized matter, not indicative that the objects is much farther away than the object in the center. Again, we OBSERVE DIRECTLY that there are "bridges" of material between these five objects that is giving off x-rays. This is further verification of electrical explanations, we have an axial view of the discharge, such discharges have been reproduced in the lab.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
"No, I've never heard of "1973 eclipse tests".
Then look up Bryce S. DeWitt's papers
"No, I've never heard of "FLASH measurement of the speed of light".
ht tp:/ /vuv-fel.desy. de/
"doppler shift tests"
H.E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, “An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 28 pg 215–226 (1938); JOSA 31 pg 369–374 (1941).
You also don't know that supernova light curves are time-delayed, in exact agreement with their redshift?
Bye troll
Pulsar89 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Your strawman version of how redshift is used is hilarious. I feel like i'm listening to a creationist explaining why he thinks radiometric dating is bogus.
What you're doing is similar to "demonstrating" cars can't drive by never putting fuel in them while you walk around looking like a professional mechanic who's baffled that it's not working.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
1)
We can infer the existence of Dark Matter from the rotation speeds of stars around galaxies: what we expected to find upon looking at galaxies is that their stars would orbit slower as you get further away. This is not the case. The velocity is more or less constant as you get further out. Therefore, we can infer that there is more matter there-a hell of a lot more, in fact-but we can't directly observe it.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
The difference between expectation and observation is not called "dark matter", it's called ERROR. Gravity models don't adequately explain the shape and motion of galaxies so "black hole" was imagined in the center of every galaxy. That didn't solve the problem so "dark matter" was invented. It wasn't "inferred" it was invented out of whole cloth and sprinkled where necessary to make "gravity" models "work". It's ad hoc and bizarre, and "redshift" does not indicate velocity.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
I always wonder why the narrative that dark matter was just made up is so popular, I understand it appeals to the destructive anti-intellectualism present in people like Spkey here (hurr durr profs are stupid, they think they can just make stuff up, hurr durr), but it has no basis in reality, only in the alternative reality of cranks with nonsense to peddle.
Same goes for the pathetic attempt at debunking gravitational lenses and black holes by Spikey btw.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
In case you didn't realize, "dark matter" was "just made up". It was invented to "explain" why gravity models don't work to explain the shape and motion of galaxies even after "black hole" was conjured up to "explain" away the same problem. These astronogers are just gazing at stars and telling stories. They're inventing perpetual numbers of epicycles like the astronogers before them.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
I just told you that the "scientists just made DM up out of thin air" narrative is an obvious lie, repetition of your articles of faith concerning this point doesn't change reality.
The only new thing (for me) you've managed to come up with, was your pathetic attempt to discredit the first confirmation of gravitational lenses. I still don't understand the point of that, since you avoided to explain the thousands of confirmations after that.
Your lie count is at 4 now btw.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
Your continued insistence that I'm lying is unconvincing. I never claimed "scientists" invented "dark matter", I said astronogers invented "dark matter" to explain why gravity models keep failing to accurately describe the shape and motion of galaxies. Your repetition of your articles of faith concerning this point doesn't change reality.
There is no reason to "discredit" this notion of "gravitational lensing", the burden of proof is on those making the claims it exists.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
And it wasn't just "dark matter" that astronogers conjured up to "explain" why gravity models keep failing. The notion of "black hole" was used to "explain" why galaxies don't obey "gravity" models. Instead of astronogers letting the observations falsify their beliefs, they summoned "black hole" in every galaxy. That still didn't "explain" away enough, so they invented "dark matter", which broke "big bang", so "dark energy" was invented to "explain" that under the rug.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
Further, there are no verified instances of "gravitational lensing" in space. There are many claims (unverified) that this "lensing" can be observed in many places, yet none of these claims have been verified by in situ observation or experimental modeling. In cases where this "lensing" might be taking place, it is readily explained by electromagnetic forces. There is abundant experimental verification of electromagnetic forces bending light, none for "gravity".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
"In cases where this "lensing" might be taking place, it is readily explained by electromagnetic forces"
No it's not you friggin' idiot, EM doesn't bend light the same way as gravity does. If anyone thought the lensing phenomena were caused by EM it would be trivial to distinguish it from a gravitational lens.
Wait, this is where the conspiracy comes in again right? Ahahahaha you crack me up. 5 Lies and counting...
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
Oh, also, eat my ass, you fucking troll. My lie count is zero. I haven't bothered to count your lies, I'm simply correcting your errors. Given that, it's likely that my responses are directly proportional to the number of errors you make.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Your lack of knowledge of how science works ensures that you are incapable of showing any lies from my side, even if i had lied here.
It's really quite cute that you've convinced yourself that EM forces bend light in the same way we observe gravity doing this. Unfortunately, that's not true, and the thousands upon thousands of known gravity lens phenomena can't be explained with your hilarious contention that EM forces bend light like we already know gravity does.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
You're the one who clearly doesn't understand how science "works". Science is not practiced by consensus, as you've suggested several times. Science is also utterly divorced from the irrelevant political process known as "peer review", something you fail to acknowledge.
It's really astonishing how many people like you have bought into the "big bang" creationist myth, as well as "black hole", "dark matter", "dark energy" and a menagerie of other fictional beasts astronogers love.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
Could you just tell me why you're so deep into crazy?
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
No experiment has ever verified this notion you keep espousing that "gravity" can have any effect on light of any kind. We know from experiment, though, that magnetic fields can bend light. The effect is known as the "faraday effect". Go look it up. Further, no "lensing" in space has ever been verified by in situ observation, it is all assumed, and many of these assumptions are based on ignorance and cherished fables that are false.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Correction: not "faraday effect" but "zeeman effect". The "faraday effect" deals with polarization of light by electromagnetic fields.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Light has no charge.
Ergo
Light is not affected by EM.
Can i have my prize now?
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
You get no prize for arrogant ignorance.
Light is electromagnetic radiation. As such, it is affected by electromagnetic fields. It can be bent with electromagnetic fields, it can be polarized by electromagnetic fields. See Birkeland's "terrella" experiments that reproduced planetary rings for an example of electromagnetic fields in plasma bending and polarizing light.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
blah blah blah
Meanwhile amateur astronomers discover planets using gravitational lensing effects that get verified by professional observatories using other methods.
Oh, maybe it was just a coincidence that the predicted planet was there, right? Either that, or it's the conspiracy again! Keep the faith my friend... LOL
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
Astronogers routinely imagine they see "gravitational lensing". The imagination of astronogers is not powerful enough to conjure it into existence, though. To date no in situ observations have verified any "lensing" in space of any kind. If such lensing is ever verified, it is readily explained by electromagnetic forces. No experiment has ever verified the notion that "gravity" can bend light.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Like i said, if people can actually make discoveries using gravitational lensing effects, which are then confirmed using other methods, i'd say you've been proven wrong pretty conclusively.
The question at hand is, how do you feel being a lying fanboy for crazy cranks?
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
These "discoveries" (that you haven't positively identified) are almost certainly not contingent on "gravitational lensing" being valid. If any such lensing is taking place, it is readily explained by electromagnetic forces, which are known to be capable of bending light ("zeeman effect"), no experimental verification of the notion that "gravity" can bend light exists. You haven't proven any of the claims I've made are wrong, anyone who wants to can do the research and confirm it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
The zeeman effect will not get electromagnetism to bend light. That's only what cranks apparently told you, and you bought into it because it confirmed your existing bias.
Furthermore, Birkeland's terrella and the faraday effect do not involve electromagnetism bending light either. Could you please stay on-topic and at least make an effort to support the claims you're making here?
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago 2
@Rhine0Cowboy
I have no questions for you, but the issue at hand is you should be eating my ass, you fucking troll.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
As for verification of exoplants, it is not dependent on the idea of "gravitational lensing" being valid. Keep in mind, there is absolutely zero experimental verification of this notion that "gravity" can bend light, while we have abundant verification of the "zeeman effect", which is electromagnetic fields bending light and splitting spectral lines as well as polarizing light, the "faraday effect". Look them up, you might learn something. I doubt it, but it's possible.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Dude, stop repeating the mantra of your faith and learn to read.
1. People discover exoplanet using gravitational lensing
2. Scientists confirm existance of that particular exoplanet
ERGO
Gravitational lensing is a useful concept that actually works and allows further discovery of the universe.
ERGO
You're full of it.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
1. The discovery of expoplanets is not contingent on the capacity of "gravity" to bend light. If you think it is, explain why. I'm sure once you do that I can explain to you precisely why you're wrong. I want to help you learn this information.
2. There is a long history among astronogers of "false alarms" dealing with exoplanets. The inferential methods used by astronogers today rely on unproven assumptions that are demonstrably false. They will only ever be right by accident.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
"The discovery of expoplanets is not contingent on the capacity of "gravity" to bend light."
Obviously this one was, otherwise i wouldn't have pointed it out to you, you clown. Apparently you're all talk and just as confined to your own little world where everything confirms your biases as i thought.
That's why science works with peer review boards btw. But you already knew that, otherwise you wouldn't be so disgruntled with them.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Rhine0Cowboy
Clearly it's your belief that this is the case, but your belief is erroneous. I'm not a clown, you shit-fucking piss worm.
Science has absolutely nothing to do with peer review and vice versa. Peer review is an irrelevant political process, not part of science. I'm not "disgruntled", I just recognize that where you clearly do not.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Rhine0Cowboy
There is absolutely no experimental verification of this idea that "gravity" can bend light. There is abundant evidence that electromagnetic forces can bend light ("zeeman effect). There is also abundant evidence electromagnetic forces can polarize light ("faraday effect"). There is no such evidence with respect to gravity causing either of these two effects. Your continued insistence that "gravity" can have such an influence is speculative and demonstrably false.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
The concept of "gravitational lensing" is not useful, it is a speculative and demonstrably false notion that is only going to lead to blind guessing. No experimental verification for the idea "gravity" can bend light exists. Relying on this supposed phenomenon to infer anything about the universe remotely is going to lead to blind guessing, which is only ever going to be right by accident.
Your belief system is unfounded sorry to upset your apple cart.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Rhine0Cowboy
There is absolutely no experimental verification of this idea that "gravity" can bend light. There is abundant evidence that electromagnetic forces can bend light ("zeeman effect). There is also abundant evidence electromagnetic forces can polarize light ("faraday effect"). There is no such evidence with respect to gravity causing either of these two effects. Your continued insistence that "gravity" can have such an influence is speculative and demonstrably false.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
Clearly it's your belief that this is the case, but your belief is erroneous. I'm not a clown, you shit-fucking piss worm.
Science has absolutely nothing to do with peer review and vice versa. Peer review is an irrelevant political process, not part of science. I'm not "disgruntled", I just recognize that where you clearly do not.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Rhine0Cowboy
There is absolutely no experimental verification of this idea that "gravity" can bend light. There is abundant evidence that electromagnetic forces can bend light ("zeeman effect). There is also abundant evidence electromagnetic forces can polarize light ("faraday effect"). There is no such evidence with respect to gravity causing either of these two effects. Your continued insistence that "gravity" can have such an influence is speculative and demonstrably false.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Rhine0Cowboy
The concept of "gravitational lensing" is not useful, it is a speculative and demonstrably false notion that is only going to lead to blind guessing. No experimental verification for the idea "gravity" can bend light exists. Relying on this supposed phenomenon to infer anything about the universe remotely is going to lead to blind guessing, which is only ever going to be right by accident.
Your belief system is unfounded sorry to upset your apple cart.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Also, the zeeman effect is not related at all. There's a QM effect called Delbruck scattering, but it doesn't affect light, it affects the components of light after a photon is broken down, also it's such a miniscule effect, it hasn't even actually been measured yet. You just lied some more, AGAIN.
Stop assuming everyone is as stupid as you are. Please cite me just ONE (1, uno, un) piece of evidence showing electromagnetism bending light.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Rhine0Cowboy
The "zeeman effect" is the phenomenon of electromagnetic fields bending light which causes a splitting of spectral lines. This is one of the lines of evidence that falsifies "redshift" assumptions made by astronogers, due to the observed quantitized nature of the "redshift". Electromagnetic forces are known to have these effects on light, the same can not be said of "gravity". I haven't lied, you're just a contrarian troll, eat my ass.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Rhine0Cowboy
Also, your claim about "Delbruck scattering" is typical of shade tree "quantum mechanics". They claim their pet philosophy adequately explains a tremendous web of complex and interrelated phenomena that WILL NEVER BE OBSERVED OR VERIFIED BY ANY MEANS. It's ludicrous, these people are snake oil salesmen, and you are extremely gullible to have fallen for all the nonsense. Come join us in the twenty-first century.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Aah, you dislike QM as well, what a surprise. I figured you'd jump on it since it's actual peer reviewed science, contains the word light, and something about direction. Which, from my experience, means to you that it's the holy grail of EM bending light y'all.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
I don't assume you're stupid, I conclude you're stupid, based on the information you've given me. Everything you say suggests you are an ignorant imbecile. I've cited the "zeeman effect", which is the effect of bending light and splitting it into spectral lines. This effect is similar to the effect of a glass prism, which splits light into spectral lines by bending it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
I don't assume you're stupid, I conclude you're stupid, based on the information you've given me. Everything you say suggests you are an ignorant imbecile. I've cited the "zeeman effect", which is the effect of bending light and splitting it into spectral lines. This effect is similar to the effect of a glass prism, which splits light into spectral lines by bending it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Rhine0Cowboy
I don't assume you're stupid, I conclude you're stupid, based on the information you've given me. Everything you say suggests you are an ignorant imbecile. I've cited the "zeeman effect", which is the effect of bending light and splitting it into spectral lines. This effect is similar to the effect of a glass prism, which splits light into spectral lines by bending it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
If you honestly think that bending light as gravity demonstrably does is the same thing as sending it through a prism, you're even more stupid then i thought. I hope you know the crank who told you this nonsense, 'cause i wouldn't take this crap and chew him out for making you look like an idiot on the internets.
Can we agree that the LHC has some of the most powerful magnets on the planet btw?
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Rhine0Cowboy
Your belief that "gravity" can bend light is utterly bereft of experimental verification. It amounts to no more than wishful thinking and flights of fancy.
You are free to engage in this approximation of thinking that you continually demonstrate, that won't make you any more right than you are now, which is to say not at all right. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
Your belief that "gravity" can bend light is utterly bereft of experimental verification. It amounts to no more than wishful thinking and flights of fancy.
You are free to engage in this approximation of thinking that you continually demonstrate, that won't make you any more right than you are now, which is to say not at all right. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Oh and btw, if you don't want to rely on QM, you can't really be citing the zeeman effect to support your claims, as it depends on the existence of quanta.
Bet you're feeling pretty dumb right about now eh? This is probably a good time to ask me to do you some more sexual favors.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
The "zeeman effect" is the phenomenon of electromagnetic fields bending light which causes a splitting of spectral lines. This is one of the lines of evidence that falsifies "redshift" assumptions made by astronogers, due to the observed quantitized nature of the "redshift". Electromagnetic forces are known to have these effects on light, the same can not be said of "gravity". I haven't lied, you're just a contrarian troll, eat my ass.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
Also, your claim about "Delbruck scattering" is typical of shade tree "quantum mechanics". They claim their pet philosophy adequately explains a tremendous web of complex and interrelated phenomena that WILL NEVER BE OBSERVED OR VERIFIED BY ANY MEANS. It's ludicrous, these people are snake oil salesmen, and you are extremely gullible to have fallen for all the nonsense. Come join us in the twenty-first century.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
The "zeeman effect" is the phenomenon of electromagnetic fields bending light which causes a splitting of spectral lines. This is one of the lines of evidence that falsifies "redshift" assumptions made by astronogers, due to the observed quantitized nature of the "redshift". Electromagnetic forces are known to have these effects on light, the same can not be said of "gravity". I haven't lied, you're just a contrarian troll, eat my ass.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
Also, your claim about "Delbruck scattering" is typical of shade tree "quantum mechanics". They claim their pet philosophy adequately explains a tremendous web of complex and interrelated phenomena that WILL NEVER BE OBSERVED OR VERIFIED BY ANY MEANS. It's ludicrous, these people are snake oil salesmen, and you are extremely gullible to have fallen for all the nonsense. Come join us in the twenty-first century.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
Unless you're defining "intellectualism" as being educated far in excess of your intelligence, you're just standing up straw men again. It is possible to teach an idiot words he doesn't understand, and you illustrate that precisely.
There is nothing fantastical about the notion that 99% of the universe is plasma, or that plasmas are dominated by electromagnetic forces, not "gravity". The universe is dominated by electromagnetic forces on every scale and at every distance.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
As for "gravitational lenses" and "black holes", there's no need to debunk them, the burden of proof is on the people claiming these preposterous things exist. So far their attempts to verify that have met with exactly zero success.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
2)
However, this doesn't mean we can't detect it through other means. Links don't work in comments, so I will PM you with the source. It is a NASA picture of the day from May 16th 2007, which shows dark matter superimposed over an image to explain the gravitational magnification of the galaxies behind it.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
Imagining that what we observe in space is "magnified" assumes facts not in evidence. This "dark matter" was invented in ad hoc fashion to "fix" gravity models because they couldn't accurately describe the shape and motion of galaxies. After "black hole" was imagined in the center of galaxies to "fix" it, there were still glaring defects, defects which were smoothed over with "dark matter", which conveniently exists only to "fix" gravity models.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
As for gravity itself, which from your use of quotation marks I assume you don't believe exists...
I'm afraid there is no question of the existence of gravity, or it's ability to bend light. Shortly after World War 1, Arthur Eddington went to the Island of Principe to observe a solar eclipse. During the eclipse he took photos which showed stars visible which should have been hidden behind the sun. This showed that the light of the stars had bent around the sun by it's gravity.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
You don't have to be afraid, just because you don't question gravity. I'm sure you would have been one of the people who didn't question "flat Earth", also.
That attraction exists in the universe is undeniable. That "gravity" is the cause is speculative. We can not generate, amplify, block or manipulate this "gravity" in any way, nor can we directly observe it, yet you say it's "real". You are wrong. Eddington's experiment was a fraud, he cited data in excess of his capacity.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
The instruments Eddington used (in simple observation, not experiment) weren't capable of providing the accuracy he cited. In short, he invented data. If you know of some EXPERIMENTS that show "gravity" can bend light, feel free to cite them here. Eddington's "experiment" was nothing of the kind, and it has been known to be a fraud almost since its inception.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
"Arthur Eddington's selective presentation of data from the 1919 eclipse so that it supposedly supported "Einstein's" general relativity theory is surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century. His lavish support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington was less interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning Einstein the king of science."
Eddington's data was fraudulent, and Einstein was a fraud and plagiarist.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
What's interesting is that, even if Eddington's data hadn't been utterly fraudulent, no attempt has ever been made to rule out other causes for this "lensing", when electromagnetic forces are KNOWN to be able to bend light, as well as polarize it, both these effects have been verified by experiment. This imaginary "gravity" has never been shown by experiment to have any effect on light of any kind. Einstein worshipers perform "thought experiments".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
1)
Provide a respectable source showing that Eddington's experiment was a fraud. Then, if you manage that, please explain away the fact that Einstein's model of gravity is actually used by real people who send real spacecraft up and plot their trajectories.
I have sent a PM with the original 1915 paper by Einstein, plus a few of the modern tests demonstrating it, with peer-reviewed sources to back myself up.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
The Eclipse Data of 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science
by Richard Moody, Jr.
For one thing, Einstein didn't develop any "model of gravity", he plagiarized it wholesale from the published works of actual physicists. That this has been ignored for a century is testament to the lack of scientific rigor among self-proclaimed "scientists".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
1)
What "wealth of evidence" do you have that they were wrong? Whoever provided it would win a Nobel Prize.
As it happens, Einstein and Eddington were off slightly, and the theory has been revised since, as all theories are. They were, however, at least accurate. I have already sent you a peer-reviewed scientific paper showing this. Maybe you should actually give it a read.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
The idea that matter "curves" space, and time, has never been verified, despite countless efforts to do so. It's a nonsensical idea, space and time are virtual coordinate systems invented by human minds, not something real you can manipulate or "curve". Reality has no effect on "space" or "time", they are imaginary constructs.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
There is abundant evidence in the public record that everything Einstein published had previously been published by actual physicists. He was an incorrigible plagiarist.
I've already address the paper you cited. I've also addressed the irrelevancy of peer review. It is not only irrelevant, it's been shown to reinforce common bias and error instead of eliminating them, it causes stagnation in science, it is merely a political process, not part of science.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
Further, I'm already familiar with the paper you cited. I don't find it very convincing.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
2)
You claim "there are no modern tests" to demonstrate the various predictions of Einstein's model. I have already sent you an image in the PM entitled "Sources...", which shows galaxies with their appearance affected by gravitational magnification. Furthermore, in my PM entitled "Sources 2" I have provided many peer-reviewed journals which detail relativistic time gains in GPS satellites.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
Best of luck in your adventure to prove something that is proven to someone who wont read the information. I commend your ambition.
FreeThoughtSolution 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
What you cite is an interpretation of an observation, an interpretation which I hold is incorrect. Where you see "gravitational lensing", I see a plasma pinch. The difference is we can and do model plasma pinches in the lab, so we can study them, and find ways to detect and verify them remotely. Your nonsensical idea of "gravitational lensing" offers no such possibility of verification, despite a century of attempts.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
You haven't provided "many peer reviewed journals", as you describe. You provided two peer-reviewed articles about two different subjects. A paper citing the observed inaccuracies of clocks in orbit is not "proof" that the Einstein worshipers are right about matter "curving" space or that relative motion between two objects can affect one of those objects but not the other, depending on which one you imagine being stationary. It's utter nonsense, why can't you see that.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
2) (cont)
...amongst other things predicted by Einstein's model. (I had intended to put that at the end of the last message)
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
3)
Where did I say that we use relativistic effects to plot the trajectories of spacecraft?
When I said that below, I was referring to gravity. Use of Einstein's model of gravity is essential in plotting trajectories of spacecraft, as it allows us to take into consideration a few aspects that would not show up in Newton's model.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
So by implication "Newton's model" is wrong. So you're saying Newton was wrong about "gravity"? You'd be right, if you said that, but of course you can reconcile it simultaneously being right and wrong, somehow.
When it comes to "relativity", as most people understand the term, much of it is just philosophical gibberish. Imagining space is "curved" by matter is a convenient fiction to visualize the phenomenon, it's like the bible, not to be taken literally.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
Further, you ignore things like the "pioneer anomaly", where Einstein worshipers offer no explanation, or bizarre explanations with ad hoc phenomena invented solely to describe the observations.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Richard Moody Jr Is supposedly a geologist, although I suspect, from his views on plate tectonics, that he got his degree at a diploma-mill of some kind. Even so, physics is not his area of expertise and my scepticism of his abilities is further increased by the fact that he advocates Cold Fusion and has appeared on radio shows which take UFO sightings seriously. Clearly the man's work has never made it through peer-review.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
You're very good at demonstrating logical fallacies. Nice job.
First you try to cast doubt on his degrees. Then you claim he's not an "expert". Then you draw erroneous links between unrelated ideas he may or may not have espoused and to top it off make the bald claim that his work is not "peer-reviewed". None of that does anything to challenge the information he's presented. Well done, you managed to leave one of my posts entirely unchallenged, how generous of you!
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
5)
Finally, I should leave you with a crucial point: it does not matter in the slightest if the Eddington eclipse experiment was a hoax or not. The evidence collected since then still exclusively supports the theory.
nashertheatheist 1 year ago
@nashertheatheist
No experiment has ever verified the more absurd claims of "relativity", such as "curvature of space-time", "time dilation", "gravitational lensing", "frame dragging", etcetera.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Why do you lie so much? It's not helping your cause you know, do you realize an 8 year old can fact check your claims here and easily determine them to be false?
Is this kind of trolling what it takes for cranks to get people to buy their books nowadays? I hope someone is paying you for being this stupid, because, if not... you probably are in need of medical attention.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
I haven't lied about anything. No experiment has ever been performed that verifies these idiotic notions like "curved" space or "time dilation".
You're the fucking troll, eat my ass, faggot. I'm not selling any books, retard.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
You don't have to hate yourself you know, there's nothing wrong with being gay. I'm just saying, since most people who use slurs like you do are gay themselves, and that's a very dangerous attitude to have in that case.
People got nobel prizes for demonstrating the very things you claims have never been demonstrated, they have the documentation. And what do you have... oh right, no understanding of redshift nor of the plentiful evidence for grav. lenses and a very big mouth.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
Eat my ass you fucking troll.
Winning prizes isn't part of science. You appear to have faith in the "redshift" assumptions that astronogers make. Those assumptions do not stand up to scrutiny, they are demonstrably false. All the claims I've made are supported by empirical referents and experimental verification.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
You already demonstrated to be unfamiliar with the concept of redshift and how it's used in astronomy. Trying to continue on this point is just as dumb as your arrogant assertions about gravity lenses.
No amount of trolling about faith or so called assumptions will convince anyone of your arguments. Either provide the peer reviewed papers or stick to posting in the uncritical echo chambers where you came from.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
On the contrary, I've not only demonstrated I'm familiar with how "redshift" is "used" by astronogers, I've also explained the fallacy of doing so. This "redshift" is no indicator of distance, recessional velocity or how far "back in time" an object is. Halton Arp showed that those assumptions were false.
The assertions I've made about "gravitational lensing" are absolutely true. You don't want to believe it, that's the problem.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
"You don't want to believe it, that's the problem"
Like all rational people, i require evidence before believing things are true. Even then, absolute truth doesn't come in to it, things are true on a provisional basis, until better evidence come along. You have demonstrated to to be hilariously wrong on numerous occasions.
Thanks for FINALLY referring to a source for your ridiculous assertions. I'm having a great laugh going over Arp's writings.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
You believe in "big bang" in the absence of evidence as well as "black hole", "dark matter", "dark energy" and a host of other creatures imagined by astronogers. You seem to base your beliefs on faith and hero worship.
Nobody has ever demonstrated that any of the claims I've made are wrong. Your continued insistence that this information has been refuted is laughable.
I've given you many sources of information to verify the claims I've made, you ignore them, like astronogers do.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Ahahahaha. It's a conspiracy i bet.
Why are cranks always such sore losers when they get laughed at for their inconsistent pet theories by peer review boards?
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
Call it "conspiracy" if you want, I just think you're incredibly ignorant. How can I be a "sore loser", I haven't lost anything. I don't care if you laugh at these ideas, they're still valid and you're still an idiot. As for "peer review", though it is an irrelevant political process, there is much peer reviewed data on these subjects that support exactly the claims I've made here. Your ignorance is no defense. I've tried many times to help you learn this information.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
"I haven't lost anything."
You have lost a lot of time dedicating your life to unprovable hypotheses and denying the existance of allready proven facts, such as gravitational lensing.
But since you are an eccentric closeminded coconut, you wouldn't understand that not all minorities are right.
BTW FYI the word "astronogers"... ppl can track you by that word.
melis256 1 year ago 2
@melis256
I haven't suggested a single hypotheses that's "unprovable". Further, all the claims I made are backed up by strong experimental verification. You see this as a problem because you have memorized a set of incoherent and contradictory fables that are starkly different than observable reality.
The idea of "gravitational lensing" is preposterous on its face, and defies over a century of direct observation and experimental verification. You are simply wrong, as are all astronogers.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
"The idea of "gravitational lensing" is preposterous on its face, and defies over a century of direct observation and experimental verification. You are simply wrong, as are all astronogers."
You're demonstrably a lying coward. Lensing is common, and can't be explained with the ad-hoc cobbled together effects you cited. Amateurs with 16" scopes can even see the lensing going on around the Abell supercluster from the ground.
What are you so afraid of?
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago 5
@fertilizerspike
"a century of direct observation and experimental verification"
It is funny how it actualy was in that century that we discovered it...
However... can you point me to any this "strong experimental verification" that you have posted...?
melis256 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
Given your belief in "big bang", "black hole" and a host of other imaginary constructs in the absence of any evidence, your claims that you are rational or that you base your beliefs on evidence fall flat with me.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
Call it "conspiracy" if you want, I just think you're incredibly ignorant. How can I be a "sore loser", I haven't lost anything. I don't care if you laugh at these ideas, they're still valid and you're still an idiot. As for "peer review", though it is an irrelevant political process, there is much peer reviewed data on these subjects that support exactly the claims I've made here. Your ignorance is no defense. I've tried many times to help you learn this information.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
Call it "conspiracy" if you want, I just think you're incredibly ignorant. How can I be a "sore loser", I haven't lost anything. I don't care if you laugh at these ideas, they're still valid and you're still an idiot. As for "peer review", though it is an irrelevant political process, there is much peer reviewed data on these subjects that support exactly the claims I've made here. Your ignorance is no defense. I've tried many times to help you learn this information.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
"Your ignorance is no defense. I've tried many times to help you learn this information."
As i've said before, and as you've ignored before, the information you point at DOES NOT support your claims, worse, it depends on science you claim is false, there is no consistency in your explanations. Your claims are impotent as any casual observer can determine based on the information YOU provided.
Stop being an obvious liar, and just explain why you're clinging to your dogma.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Rhine0Cowboy
Given your belief in "big bang", "black hole" and a host of other imaginary constructs in the absence of any evidence, your claims that you are rational or that you base your beliefs on evidence fall flat with me.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
You's trolling for sure.
You don't even try to defend your silly assertions, all you can do is repeat your copy/paste chants, completely disregarding the reality outside your comfortable bubble. Case in point:
- Citing effects that don't even remotely support your retarded assertions.
Seriously, get help.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
I don't "try to defend silly assertions" because I haven't made any silly assertions. Your ignorance truly knows no bounds.
You're the one completely disregarding reality. You disregard over 99% of the observable universe, choosing instead to imagine that the vast majority of the universe is for some reason unobservable and strange in defiance of known, verified physical principles and laws. You are delusional, go educate yourself before you run your mouth any more.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
I don't "try to defend silly assertions" because I haven't made any silly assertions. Your ignorance truly knows no bounds.
You're the one completely disregarding reality. You disregard over 99% of the observable universe, choosing instead to imagine that the vast majority of the universe is for some reason unobservable and strange in defiance of known, verified physical principles and laws. You are delusional, go educate yourself before you run your mouth any more.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Your trolling is horrible. You bring shame to the art.
Here's what you need to work on: Instead of being dead wrong on everything, sprinkle in some actual facts with your nonsense so you come off as someone who might have some idea of what they're talking about. If your goal is to confuse people with misinformation, you need to present the trivial things correctly. If someone agrees with you on one thing, they'll trust the jibberish bullshit you follow up with.
:)
LoryLandskipper 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoryLandskipper
Eat my ass, you fucking troll. I'm not trolling, maybe that's why you think it's "horrible", because it's non-existent.
I haven't stated anything that's wrong, you're just exceedingly ignorant. My goal is to educate people, not confuse them with a bunch of imaginary bullshit like "big bang" or "black hole".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
If you don't want to fess up, I understand. The first rule of trolling is to sell it like you believe it.
I'm hereby calling out fertilizerspike. He's not being truthful at all with his posts, and he only wants to irritate people with obvious ignorance.
Like I said, your comments would have drawn in more of a reaction if they weren't 100% bullshit nonsense. Sprinkle in some undeniable facts here and there so you actually come off as a real idiot who believes that crap.
lol
LoryLandskipper 1 year ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoryLandskipper
This is why you fail, I'm not trolling, I'm just trying to help people learn.
Nothing I've said is wrong, every bit of it is supported by experimental verification. If you doubt it, feel free to call attention to any specific thing you think I've said that's wrong.
Oh, also, eat my ass, you fucking troll.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoryLandskipper
There's nothing in my posts BUT facts, you're simply too ignorant to realize that. You have a head full of fables and bad wiring. I don't blame you, I blame the steady torrent of bullshit fed to you through your television disguised as "science". Unverifiable notions are not scientific. Unwarranted and baseless speculation is not fact. If you doubt anything I've said, cite it specifically here or shut your fat fucking mouth about it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Debating the things you said is like debating a child on the existence of Santa. It's a pointless exercise meant only to waste my time while you get some form of enjoyment. That's all trolling is.
I guess I COULD waste my time sitting here debating nonsense with science, but it's pointless because if you truly are this stupid, then nothing I say and nothing I present will get through to you. You'll argue for the sake of arguing, even when undeniable truth is presented.
LoryLandskipper 1 year ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoryLandskipper
I didn't ask you to debate. This is not a debate. I'm not going to debate you. I'm trying to educate you. If you have issues with anything I've said, feel free to explain it here. If not, shut your fat fucking mouth about it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Could you share your opinion on QM in more detail?
Why is there a serious lack of light being bent at the LHC's magnets? Wouldn't the fiber optic networks relaying your internet communication be susceptible to the strong electromagnetic fields they routinely pass through in tightly packed datacenters and IP traffic exchanges?
Did you ever consider you might not be smart enough to declare everyone else stupid for daring to examine your claims?
Canned responses in 3 2 1 ...
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoryLandskipper
I didn't ask you to debate. This is not a debate. I'm not going to debate you. I'm trying to educate you. If you have issues with anything I've said, feel free to explain it here. If not, shut your fat fucking mouth about it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoryLandskipper
There's nothing in my posts BUT facts, you're simply too ignorant to realize that. You have a head full of fables and bad wiring. I don't blame you, I blame the steady torrent of bullshit fed to you through your television disguised as "science". Unverifiable notions are not scientific. Unwarranted and baseless speculation is not fact. If you doubt anything I've said, cite it specifically here or shut your fat fucking mouth about it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoryLandskipper
I didn't ask you to debate. This is not a debate. I'm not going to debate you. I'm trying to educate you. If you have issues with anything I've said, feel free to explain it here. If not, shut your fat fucking mouth about it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoryLandskipper
There's nothing in my posts BUT facts, you're simply too ignorant to realize that. You have a head full of fables and bad wiring. I don't blame you, I blame the steady torrent of bullshit fed to you through your television disguised as "science". Unverifiable notions are not scientific. Unwarranted and baseless speculation is not fact. If you doubt anything I've said, cite it specifically here or shut your fat fucking mouth about it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoryLandskipper
There's nothing in my posts BUT facts, you're simply too ignorant to realize that. You have a head full of fables and bad wiring. I don't blame you, I blame the steady torrent of bullshit fed to you through your television disguised as "science". Unverifiable notions are not scientific. Unwarranted and baseless speculation is not fact. If you doubt anything I've said, cite it specifically here or shut your fat fucking mouth about it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
did you seriously reply to me again?
dude, I don't care. You're an idiot, end of story.
LoryLandskipper 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoryLandskipper
I'll thank you to keep your fucking opinions about me to yourself. This is not the place for you to discuss them. Save your opinions about me for the next time your mother comes down to the basement to do your laundry.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rhine0Cowboy
You believe in "big bang" in the absence of evidence as well as "black hole", "dark matter", "dark energy" and a host of other creatures imagined by astronogers. You seem to base your beliefs on faith and hero worship.
Nobody has ever demonstrated that any of the claims I've made are wrong. Your continued insistence that this information has been refuted is laughable.
I've given you many sources of information to verify the claims I've made, you ignore them, like astronogers do.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Rhine0Cowboy
You believe in "big bang" in the absence of evidence as well as "black hole", "dark matter", "dark energy" and a host of other creatures imagined by astronogers. You seem to base your beliefs on faith and hero worship.
Nobody has ever demonstrated that any of the claims I've made are wrong. Your continued insistence that this information has been refuted is laughable.
I've given you many sources of information to verify the claims I've made, you ignore them, like astronogers do
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Lol. You are the worst electric universe troll ever, as soon as you get questions that will show you're wrong, you hide like the intellectual coward you are.
I've looked at your claims and, like any other 10 year old could, easily determined that the effects you cite do not support your claims. Even worse, you cited effects that depend on science that you yourself regard as untrue. We're still awaiting your explanation for this obvious inconsistency in your thinking.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Rhine0Cowboy
You've made a lot of mistakes, but since it's mistakes involving your personal beliefs about me, I won't bother to correct them here.
You seem unable to address any of the evidence I cited or the claims I've made specifically, all you seem to be able to do is make bald blanket assurances that everything I say is wrong. I doubt many people find that sort of thing convincing so you're just wasting time.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Are you a troll from up is down world or something?
Compulsive liars that won't present any evidence besides referring to effects that don't do what you interpret them to do really shouldn't be loose on the internet. Take your medication pal, and stop making stuff up about what you think i believe, i know you have to reach for the emergency brake once in a while and try to paint me in some way that pleases the madman in your head, but tr