All Photons Move at 300,000km/s.... But Don't?

I'd say no. He's a member of a society of cranks who want you to know who they are and take full credit for the brilliance of their comments.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Farsight's is dumb because he maintains a 'high level' of scientific illiteracy, and intellectual dishonesty, to perpetuate his droll. I meant troll. LOL.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Being an asshole isn't an infringement of the rules unless you're calling somebody else an asshole and are cited for inappropriate language. Click on the terms and rules link at the bottom right hand of the page. It's hard to figure out. Trolling isn't an offense yet they've permabanned folks for the offense of trolling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see you're talking again...lol

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hi exochemist.
Let me say one up, on point [a] that it is true I'm not a trained scientist, but by the same token neither is my adversary to whom your post is addressed.
This is a person who has confessed to around 12 months perusal of the subject matter, he now claims superiority in.
Ignoring my adversary and his emotive obsession with me, I certainly am a student of science though, particularly astronomy/cosmology and all it entails, and have learnt plenty from two main sources, [1] A professional astronomer and a professional GR theorist on another forum, coupled with [2]a dozen or so reputable books on the subjects.

On your point I do totally see science, all science as the prime discipline that has advanced human kind, and as yet no one has convinced me any differently. I'm not sure I treat it with "reverence" though, but more a fact that I see the scientific method and peer review as essential and a prime reason for present science and the advances it has made for the human race.
I see real scientists, the ones that are at the forefront as making those progresses, and contributing to human knowledge.
I don't see "real scientists" as those that come here claiming to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology, and bypassing the scientific method and peer review. The real scientists and the ones that make a difference, are the ones already mentioned, working their proverbial butts off at the coal face.
With all due respect to the students and amateur scientists that come here, it is also factual that this forum, like other science forums are open to all.....Interested amateurs, Interested lay people, delusionals cranks and crackpots that have been turned away from academia or never venture there in the first place, and the general trolls like jcc.
In essence, and what I'm trying to say is that it is very highly unlikely that this forum or any other science forum, is going to be a vehicle for some probable momentous discovery or improvement of our understanding of the universe around us.
It doesn't and isn't going to work that way.

On your point [c] and being irritable, that's an interesting point, and on that score I apologise to the forum here as a whole for my part in any bickering.
But I also believe that due to forums such as this being open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, with their delusions of grandeur, or just a plain anti science dogma, and as a consequence, any of the unsupported, unevidenced, and unscientific crap that is likely to evolve from these, needs to be refuted totally and as convincingly as possible.
Worth noting on that score, how these anti science nuts and those professing to be able to rewrite all of cosmology, are so sure of themselves and see themselves as a guiding light for mankind.
Yes, I certainly do rail against this sort of nonsense and I believe I have a right to. It's not a matter of picking fights or being argumentative. I'll invite anyone to check out any debate I have been a part of and show me where I have been the first to denigrate that debate.

Finally as most know, I am an enthusiastic amateur and basically a lay person.
Perhaps this is the main contributing factor in some of the flame wars I have been a part of.
Obviously those that come to this forum, claiming to rewrite 21st century cosmology, those that think GR is wrong, those that claim to have TOES, all obviously suffer from delusions of grandeur. Perhaps being told by a rank amateur lay person that they are wrong and delusional is just too much to bear.

 

Is Math a science or not?

Just asking for an opinion. My student ID says "Science" whereas others can explicitly have "Math".

 

Maths is the language of physics I was once informed.

 

IMO, it means time for stupid semantics i.e. My physical theory of how many apples you have is corollary of the mathematical theorem of addition and subtraction on the real number line from zero to infinity. But it's still only a theory!

Or.. something to that effect.


:EDIT:

Oh I'd should add I'd like anyone to prove me wrong!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You can write down a proof for the mathematics. You can use mathematics to derive a theoretical prediction which can be confirmed or falsified by experiment and observation.

 

light was not there before you detect it.

light is gravitational wave between the source atoms and the target/detector atoms.

 

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=57073.msg461005#msg461005

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/light-solid-liquid-or-gas.49823/page-6#post-3311065

A bit much...

 

Even for an idiot troll?

 

Deleted, as redundant.

 

reported. advertising other sites.

 

LMFAO one is a site you yourself linked earlier, the other one is this site, dumbass.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You got in before I could!

 

Good observation, I have also complemented Paddoboy in the past for his enthusiasm and energy at this age for cosmology.....It is just that few of us are not able to handle irritation caused by him and his fights properly.

His more than required reverence for science makes him take cudgels at the slightest opposition or argument against mainstream. He is not able to understand the difference between Anti Science and alternative theorist under the aegis of science. For him any one speaking or questioning the mainstream is a troll/crank, which cannot be true. A person who is proposing any alternative theory with some scientific argument, may be wrong, but he need not be an anti science troll. But a person who opposes any and every thing against science can come under troll.

 

Not at all. The facts as they stand......In the three forums I have been a part of, not one alternative idea has ever reached fruition and general acceptance...some were just plain nonsense, and others driven by people that do not believe in standing on the shoulders of giants, and would have you believe they can invalidate current accepted cosmology, without any access to the myriad of state of the art equipment and computer modeling open to the real cosmologist. And yes, most certainly some are trolls and cranks.
It will not happen on this or any other science forum for the stated reasons.
Anyone with any model that he believes as superior to the incumbent model, will undergo proper peer review via the accepted scientific methodology.

A person who proposes an alternative hypothesis in the science sections is in error, either through ignorance or trollish behaviour.
You have done that.
Any alternative hypothesis pusher who will not accept expert professional advice, nor reputable links stating the stated accepted belief is just plain bull headed.
You have never accepted you are in error, despite all the evidence.