What's the other 90+% made of?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Cassius Malachi, Dec 28, 2015.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Go there on that thread and see the latest reference given by Hansda on bending of light. That paper shows yours, Physbang and paddoboy's trolling from a position of ignorance.

    and you have not understood the pain being felt by Schemelzer despite publications, not many are touching it....And I am sorry to say Origin, you have not demonstrated any ability to question or find fault in my arguments. You lack that intelligence.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    hmmm... Give one which questions GR or BH?

    By the way now you have understood that the deflection values were known to Eddington before that experiment? Or you are still in doubt?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    The damm model might be wrong
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Check out the bibliography here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/

    I have understood this since I first took relativity theory over a decade ago. However, the values weren't known a priori, they were known from theoretical extrapolation from observations. The values are no handed down by God to rational inspection, one has to actually do science to discover them, contrary to your claims. We can do the same for dozens of astronomical objects out there with higher precision that Eddington ever could hope for. That you choose to ignore a century of science is why you are identifiable as a crank,
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Yes, which your excuse for a scientific paper failed to do, while the other was totally rejected out of hand.
    Yet you have totally failed to show any of that derision as factual.
    Talk is cheap, particularly on a forum open to all and sundry.
    And in regards to cheap baseless talk, you take out the prize.
    Nothing is perfect but peer review certainly worked in your case and in exposing you for what and who you are: Your other anti science thread on this forum being shifted to pseudoscience actually sums you up to a "T "
    And you have done no better since.
     
  9. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,991
    What a pathetic delusional buffoon.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Two points, Any new theory if it is good enough and superior to the incumbent theory, will in time be accepted for what it is.
    Secondly, as I say many times, no new theory will ever see the light of day and have their beginnings on a science forum such as this, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry.
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/for-the-alternative-theorists.141223/

    [1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:

    [2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...

    [3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

    [4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:

    [5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:

    [6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support:

    [7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.

    [8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

    [9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:

    [10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

    [11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.

    [12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories:
    Addition by Grumpy:
    [13] Make damn sure that you understand current theory as it is presented by the "main stream" before you embark on your exploration of new frontiers. That is the starting point. Our recent troubles are caused by the fact that our would-be Hawkings don't even understand the first postulate(Relativity) and flat out deny the second postulate(constant, invariant c)yet still claim to understand the theory based only on those two postulates. This is not rationality, it is delusion.
     
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Quite pitiable on your part, not even a single meaningful content post by you, people like you can resort to direct abuses only....
     
  12. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Which portion of your referred link questions BH or GR, can you please be more specific ?

    It appears you have not.

    Einstein Calculated deflection angle by Sun based on SR (0.89 Arcseconds) in 1911
    Einstein re calculated the deflection angle by Sun based on GR (1.75 Arcseconds) in 1915
    Eddington conducted the said experiment in 1919

    Now, how can you say that he did not know the expected deflection values before experiment ?
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    A far more relevant question would be what credentials do you have to question any of 21st century cosmology, with your record on this forum and your favourite pseudoscience haunt.


     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2015
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Your claims and thoughts have been refuted many times in many areas of cosmology, not only by myself and other reputable forum members, but by professionals also.
    Yet you continue with your pathetic act and your ignoring of probing questions put to you that exposes your obvious fraudster like ways.


    Let me remind you again.
    What you say on this forum makes no difference to reputable working scientists.
    Your posts reflect nothing other than delusions, errors, and pseudoscience crap.







    Again, if you believe you have any thing with substance, write up another scientific paper, and get the appropriate peer review.
    You havn't, and you won't and you'll also totally ignore this reasonable request.
     
  15. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    What is your point, Paddoboy, on the content...
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    First you are off topic. Second your claims anyway are as usual wrong.Third, your refusal to answer legitimate questions, label your posts as totally fraudulent. Fourth, you have had past threads shifted to pseudoscience before. Fifth, you have a religious agenda which blinds you to reality and fact. Sixth, if you had anything of substance in any of your anti science rants, you would not be here. Seventh, Forums such as this are open to anyone including cranks and religious nuts that have the fanatical need to deride that which invalidates their magic pixie in the sky. Eight, you have most probably been banned from other forums for the same nonsense.

    And of course a far more relevant question would be what credentials do you have to question any of 21st century cosmology, with your record on this forum and your favourite pseudoscience haunt.
     
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    .......
    Einstein Calculated deflection angle by Sun based on SR (0.89 Arcseconds) in 1911
    Einstein re calculated the deflection angle by Sun based on GR (1.75 Arcseconds) in 1915
    Eddington conducted the said experiment in 1919
    ......

    Paddoboy, can you please tell what is Pseudoscience, delusion, error or crap in above 3 lines.....
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Your questions have been answered many times.
    There is no problem as per the many links I have given.
    Gravitational lensing is a proven fact due to spacetime curvature and light travelling in geodesics, means that we actually see an apparent image as distinct from the real one.

    More relevant questions are [1] what credentials do you have to question any of 21st century cosmology, with your record on this forum and your favourite pseudoscience haunt...[2]If you believe you have found a problem, than write up a paper for proper peer review.
    Again, if you believe you have any thing with substance, write up another scientific paper, and get the appropriate peer review.
    You havn't, and you won't and you'll also totally ignore this reasonable request.
    Please do not keep avoiding the questions I have asked you many times. You are fooling no one except yourself.
     
  19. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,991
    I find your ignorance and arrogance annoying. This is pointless.
     
  20. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I have no idea what you mean by "BH", but almost every citation has a critical analysis of General Relativity.
    No, I said that they weren't a priori. How do you think these things are calculated? From a contemplation of what "Sun" means?

    If something is a priori, then it is something that can be known before experience. We can't know how much the sun will deflect light without knowing a lot of things about the Sun and about the theory we are using to calculate deflection.

    So, a crank might think that it is possible to know the deflection of light a priori, perhaps because they feel that they have some sort of mystical connection to the universe that makes them "always right". However, in science, things like the specific deflection of light by a star are things that have to be discovered a posteriori from experience.

    Additionally, a crank will ignore all the other stars that we have looked at in great detail, done the work, and observed deflections while focusing instead on a century-old observation with high error bars.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  21. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Could that be an abbreviation for "black hole"?
     
  22. Waiter_2001 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
  23. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    This post shows either you are ignorant or dishonest. No third conclusion is possible. So giving you benefit of doubt, let me take the former and attempt once more to educate you.

    1. Einstein proposed his SR in 1905 and based on this in 1911 he derived a formula for deflection of light in presence of massive object as 2GM/rc^2.... For 'Sun' the values of mass M and radius r (assuming r = Rsun for closer to surface path) were known to science and this figure comes out to be 0.89 ArcSecond.

    2. In 1915 Einstein proposed GR and re derived the deflection formula which was 4GM/rc^2, giving a value 1.75 ArcSeconds.

    Eddington was aware of these calculations before he conducted his famous experiment in 1919............experiments are conducted to verify the theretical results also. Take for example GP-B, based on GR the frame dragging values etc were known before the experiment. The observation tallied.......

    So Dear Physbang, don't teach me Physics and don't act smart. Learn, instead of abuses and calling others as cranks etc learn something and contribute positively. Company of people like Origins and Paddoboys on such platform may give you a feel good but really will do nothing for your learning.

    ..Pl share what you learnt about GR since you started 10 years ago..
     

Share This Page