RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Even the Black Body Radiation !! Even your solar sails !!
If you are talking about arrival of photons to the target plate, then there is no science in that....
All Photons Move at 300,000km/s.... But Don't?
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
Even the Black Body Radiation !! Even your solar sails !!
If you are talking about arrival of photons to the target plate, then there is no science in that....
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Right GR is not QGT, and QGT has not yet been fully established....
How GR fails at Planck's level ?? Why don't you stick to this claim of yours, don't deviate.
It's you that has deviated. exochemist has asked you a question re the photoelectric effect and photons.
And really, why GR fails at the quantum/Planck level is as I have said. To try and wriggle out of that by claiming the quantum has not been fully evaluated, is just again doing some more wriggling.
But anyway, I found a nice little link for you.
Actually this place ran the first science forum I ever belonged too. the ABC and which James was a past member also before it went defunct.
anyway enough chitter chatter.....
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/06/27/3526067.htm
Now that is just jccc level ignorance.
Solar sails is of course the evidence that light/photons have momentum, which jcc could not get his head around and now in an effort to again divert the debate, you have raised it again,
exochemist has asked a question Rajesh?
And I asked one about your second paper further "supporting" BNSs?
And I asked one about your second paper further "supporting" BNSs?
Thanks Paddoboy. Sure I may not always have the right idea, but I'm always happy to learn.
The fact remains, you are no Chandra or Eddington or even a cosmologist, correct?
And yet you expect we should all ignore what we read from reputable links, what reputable Professors tell us, and what the majority of the forum accepts, in favour of your cosmologically enlightened view. Is that correct?
Oh, and a third question you have yet to answer Rajesh.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
It's you that has deviated. exochemist has asked you a question re the photoelectric effect and photons.
And really, why GR fails at the quantum/Planck level is as I have said. To try and wriggle out of that by claiming the quantum has not been fully evaluated, is just again doing some more wriggling.
But anyway, I found a nice little link for you.
Actually this place ran the first science forum I ever belonged too. the ABC and which James was a past member also before it went defunct.
anyway enough chitter chatter.....
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/06/27/3526067.htm
I will respond to Exchemist....you do not run away...
Both of the below are being claimed by you, so please clarify..
1. How GR Fails at Plancks' level ?
2. What is the motion of Photon to do with Photo Electric Effect (PEE) ?
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
You linked the Motion of Photon with PEE, whats the link ? Let exchemist or others know about your logic behind this linkage.....This is the problem with you when cornered you run away..
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Now that is just jccc level ignorance.
Solar sails is of course the evidence that light/photons have momentum, which jcc could not get his head around and now in an effort to again divert the debate, you have raised it again,
This is the right statement, that photon has momentum which explains the pressure generated, you can google about Radiation Pressure too. My question is why did you specifically chose to associate motion of Photon with PEE ?
And I do not know JCC level of ignorance, but I surely know Paddoboy level of ignorance, yours is terminology level knowledge, very shallow, you are ignorant beyond that. But with this shallow knowledge and complete ignorance on the details, you are able to successfully irritate many posters and making them run away...thats the irony.
Rajesh, your problem is that you're attempting to rewrite an area of science you don't know that much about.
Oh, almost forgot, you're also condescending as fuck.
Kid.
Oh, almost forgot, you're also condescending as fuck.
Kid.
Well respond and please stop the childish banter?
I have explained and given a link. You are now doing what jcc got banned for.
Here's the link again anyway.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/06/27/3526067.htm
Let's get one thing straight rajesh...you have three unanswered questions.
Exochemist isn't in a corner, neither am I. Just you doing your wriggling hoping that those watching your devious style, fail to notice.
Like the quick change from your claim that GR somehow covers the quantum/Planck level.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
This is what your link says....
........The 20th century was quite the time for crazy sounding theories that explain how the universe works.
With it's warpy spacetime and gravitational time dilation, Einstein's theory of general relativity sounds borderline insane — or at least worthy of medication. But it's been spectacularly successful at predicting and describing the behaviour of things that are huge (like planets and stars) or super-fast (anywhere near the speed of light).....
This is just an article bereft of any science in it, for lay crowd. It no where states that GR fails at Planck's level.
And mind you, I never said that GR covers Quantum / Plancks' level,,, you made a statement that GR fails at Planck's level, just support/prove it. Thats it....Why scattering around taking help of my dialogue with Exchemists or bringing BNS, all unrelated things.
PS : Bernie's Basics, you quote from there, what a link you provided ? Thats why mostly I do not click on the links given by you.
Last edited:
Explained and I'm not explaining again.
And also exochemist explained it in even better terms.
\
The irony actually is that you cannot answer questions put to you, and like jcc, ignore all answers and links, which was my reason for the similarity.
And again my dear friend, whatever level my knowledge is at, it most certainly surpasses your own and that has been proven many times.
But I also see where you are taking all of this again due to your well known bull headed nature.
Now I must be off. again......
The fact remains, you are no Chandra or Eddington or even a cosmologist, correct?
And yet you expect we should all ignore what we read from reputable links, what reputable Professors tell us, and what the majority of the forum accepts, in favour of your cosmologically enlightened view. Is that correct?
GR is not a QGT........by definition. I don't need to prove nothing, the onus of proof is on you since you are the one railing against accepted mainstream cosmology.
And of course this concerns the BNS and your total inability to accept you are clueless and totally wrong. GR proves you are wrong, just as it has in all your eight or nine threads, most which have now been thankfully moved to more appropriate sections.
again......
The fact remains, you are no Chandra or Eddington or even a cosmologist, correct?
And yet you expect we should all ignore what we read from reputable links, what reputable Professors tell us, and what the majority of the forum accepts, in favour of your cosmologically enlightened view. Is that correct?
That's what you say about all reputable links, and also all expert replies we have had.
Which for the third time leads me to ask you again......
The fact remains, you are no Chandra or Eddington or even a cosmologist, correct?
And yet you expect we should all ignore what we read from reputable links, what reputable Professors tell us, and what the majority of the forum accepts, in favour of your cosmologically enlightened view. Is that correct?
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
If you provides link from some other forum and likes of Bernie's Basics, then what do you expect ? You call them reputable ? Wow.
Correct on the first two counts, but please define cosmologist.
And yet you expect we should all ignore what we read from reputable links, what reputable Professors tell us, and what the majority of the forum accepts, in favour of your cosmologically enlightened view. Is that correct?
This is just the rant.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Thats the true Paddoboy. See, you have come out again.
You will make stupid statements like, GR Fails at Planck's level, and then irritate with funny links and finally when cornered, You will run away or start babbling....
Enjoy the dinner and go to bed, and yeah wish you a very very long life so that you can see QGT getting established...GN.
Ít wasn't and isn't a forum..
It's the science department of the ABC. They also once had a science forum.Again trying to get out from under Rajesh?.
You know what a cosmologist is as well as I. And you categorically are not one. in fact you do not even come close...fact!
No, its a legitimate question that you do not have the guts enough to answer. Why? Because it actually goes right to the crux of this matter with you, as well as other "would be's if they could be's"
Quite factual though.
YES, you said something familiar when the BNS was demolished.
Like I said, the members and our peers on this forum will be the judge of who is stupid, and who is totally without credibility.
Your continued "running away"jibe, actually reflects on some kindagarten child...Can you see that?As others have noted, your peers here, your condescending presumptuous and arrogant attitude wins you no friends, and couple that with your obviously error ridden anti mainstream nonsense and it's no wonder most see you as a troll.