Gravity Works Like This

paddoboy said:
Yep, the same peers......
The peer review system, despite your hanging onto one unsavoury incident for dear life, is the best we have and has in general been shown to work quite well..
In the meantime, your abstract dream languishes in your mind.
Click to expand...

You would go to a 'quack' doctor PROVEN TO BE a serious 'quack' that has missed all sorts of disease and ailments in patients presenting to them?

Your insurance company would have something to say about that, paddo! But you are an adult, I presume, who has the right to make your own decisions about what 'authority' to submit to. Good luck with that, mate.

Languishes? Not at all, it's coming together nicely, even the new contextual reality maths axioms I'm also working on. along with the physics ToE.:)

But you wouldn't have the faintest idea what such work was like, mate, obviously; since you let others do your 'thinking' for you while you delude yourself you have any sort of 'good handle on things' in any objective scientific sense whatsoever, hey paddo? Good luck with that and the 'doctor' you choose to 'submit' to, mate. :)
 
Undefined said:
His 'beliefs' are neither here nor there if they are only there because of the 'peers' in his field 'consensus'.
Click to expand...

Then you have the FACT that his 'triangulation exercise on CMB features' demonstrated the flat and infinitely extending energy-space.
Click to expand...
It's not his exercise. And it's not a fact, it's an inference from a lot of very finicky data. That doesn't mean it's not a good inference; but one cannot simply assumes, because one likes the result, that the result is something that is obvious or required no intellectual work that relies on a number of assumptions and challenging scientific enterprises.

I opt for the Sean Carroll results; as they did not depend on any a-priori assumptions as associated with BB or Inflation hypotheses at all.
Click to expand...
No more than any other theorist that, like Carroll, also accepts the "big bang" theory and inflation.

Just the CMB objectively observed and its features objectively treated per Pythagorean principle. Period.
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea how one "observes" the CMB?

Please see a professional.
 
Undefined said:
But you wouldn't have the faintest idea what such work was like, mate, obviously; since you let others do your 'thinking' for you while you delude yourself you have any sort of 'good handle on things' in any objective scientific sense whatsoever, hey paddo? Good luck with that and the 'doctor' you choose to 'submit' to, mate. :)
Click to expand...




I think I have done rather well.
I mean I havn't yet let any of the conspiracy nutters, alternative theory pushers or pseudoscientific ratbags sway me from what the reality of the Universe is like....
Yep, I have done quite well.
 
paddoboy said:
I think I have done rather well.
I mean I havn't yet let any of the conspiracy nutters, alternative theory pushers or pseudoscientific ratbags sway me from what the reality of the Universe is like....
Yep, I have done quite well.
Click to expand...

And you are the best judge of your own 'understandings' of universally reality? That's quite a reach of self-delusion, given all you have demonstrated so far is comic book abstractions and fantasies in lieu of real understanding of either 'side' of the debated subjects/ideas. Those 'tickets on yourself' weren't 'found' by you on the street where someone who really knew what they were talking about may have accidently dropped them, were they? Go easy on the VB and the ego-tripping, mate. It's alright amongst your mates in your new man-cave, but it's silly here in a science forum. Know your boundaries, cobber. :)
 
Undefined said:
And you are the best judge of your own 'understandings' of universally reality?
Click to expand...

That judgement, in the main is supported by mainstream cosmological models.
Which consequently leaves you out in the cold and delusional among other things. :shrug:
 
paddoboy said:
That judgement, in the main is supported by mainstream cosmological models.
Which consequently leaves you out in the cold and delusional among other things. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Again with your 'appeals to authority' which is either flawed or you don't understand properly. Either way, no go, mate. You're left up your ego creek without any paddles that are real. Good luck. :)
 
Undefined said:
Again with your 'appeals to authority' which is either flawed or you don't understand properly. Either way, no go, mate. You're left up your ego creek without any paddles that are real. Good luck. :)
Click to expand...

No, no appeal :shrug: ...I simply agree with the mainstream...which as I said, leaves you out in the cold.
 
paddoboy said:
No, no appeal :shrug: ...I simply agree with the mainstream...which as I said, leaves you out in the cold.
Click to expand...

So your uncomprehending 'agreement with mainstream' is all you got when push comes to shove? Right. Got it. Thanks for the admission. Nice change from your trolling out of personal ignorance and malice. I trust your behavior will improve accordingly now we got that admission from you out of the way. Cheers. :)
 
Undefined: please do not feed the troll. Paddoboy is deliberately antagonising you in order to spoil this thread.

Now can we get back on topic and discuss the OP?
 
Farsight said:
Now can we get back on topic and discuss the OP?
Click to expand...

Already done in post 383 thus.....

Sure....Your summation about how things work is wrong...pure and simple.
The first thing you should learn is that the speed of light is constant, and remains constant.
And Einstein did not in effect say any different ignoring the "out of context " references you have offered.
 
Farsight

Now can we get back on topic and discuss the OP?
Click to expand...

Why? It's craptastically, comically and factually wrong, as we have demonstrated to anyone not blinded by belief. You know nothing so you make it up as you go. Your idiotic posts would be embarrassing to you, if you knew enough to know just how idiotic they truly are.

Grumpy:cool:
 
paddoboy said:
In essence they all have some underlying reasons for their collective arrogance and stupidity.
Click to expand...

Yours must be a doozy! ;)

Have you no sensible OP arguments to offer the discussion?

NO? I thought so.

Just more 'paddo noise' from your science-empty troll agenda. Sad.



PS: OK, Farsight, wilco, over and out! Cheers! :)
 
paddoboy said:
Certainly I do, as the evidence suggests...
You?
Click to expand...

You up to speed yet with the WHOLE 2nd postulate yet, or are you still making 'paddo noises' based on your partial handle and confusions on all things scientific? Russ and PhysBang are fast getting up to speed, but you will naturally be the last to do that. Sad.


PS: Sorry, Farsight, that was a final reminder to paddo to read/understand MUCH better before pretending to have any clue. Cheers.
 
Undefined said:
You up to speed yet with the WHOLE 2nd postulate yet, or are you still making 'paddo noises' based on your partial handle and confusions on all things scientific? Russ and PhysBang are fast getting up to speed, but you will naturally be the last to do that. Sad.
Click to expand...

Are they?
I seriously doubt it.....Remember telling lies, makes little baby Jesus cry.

Getting down to the nitty gritty, the speed of light remains constant because it has no mass...If that speed varied at all, then we would need to asign some mass to it....and as far as we know, it is massless.
 
To further extend a helping hand to the confused, and in relation to the above, it should also be said that if you tried to imagine something that had some rest mass and was then traveling at ''c", it would have infinite "mass"
So logically it follows that anything with zero mass will always be at "c", and anything with any rest mass, will never be able to reach "c"
But I'm sure I have said just as much earlier in one of these threads.
 
Undefined said:
Yours must be a doozy! ;)

Have you no sensible OP arguments to offer the discussion?

NO? I thought so.
Click to expand...
The tone is really up to you: plenty of sensible arguments have been provided and you can make this discussion be about them by responding to them - here and elsewhere. Instead, time after time, you show yourself to be unwilling and/or unable to do so.
 
paddoboy said:
Are they?
I seriously doubt it.....Remember telling lies, makes little baby Jesus cry.

Getting down to the nitty gritty, the speed of light remains constant because it has no mass...If that speed varied at all, then we would need to asign some mass to it....and as far as we know, it is massless.
Click to expand...

He should be crying a river by now after listening to you make all those 'paddo noise' filled 'porky pies', mate. Listen to the discussion with them more closely and you'll see where they are caught between Einstein's 2nd Postulate "rider' and a hard place. They have nothing left except more obvious troll tactics of evasion and distraction at all costs to the facts in discussion. How you doin'? Get a clue yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top