Thread: jyutao's ideas

We need understand what is energy and what is matter made up of first.
1) Let us analyze the smallest single charged particle, electron. The electric field around electron should be determined by electron. If we track down the electric field down to the center of electron, the center point causes the electric field direct to all direction. This does not make sense. The big possibility is the center is empty.
2) An important experiment: Pair production test.
pair production experiments shows that passing a gamma ray through the strong electromagnetic field near the nucleus results in the creation of an electron and positron. this means the electron and positron are made up of electromagnetic field. Magnetic field is created by electric field too. So the positron and electron are composed of electric field.
3) The properties of electric field: electric field tends to be in the same direction and even density. Only sphere structure can satisfy both properties. If you leave a electric field there, it will quickly form the sphere structure by itself with the field radiating to all directions. Since the direction property, electric field forms two kinds sphere structure, one is the electric field towards the center, the other one is outwards the center. They have the same size but opposite field direction. Those are positron and electron.
Two conclusion: 1) particle is made up of electric field. 2) electron is not an small particle, its field can reach far away.

I will write more when I get chance

Why have you hijacked someone else's thread with this?

Originally Posted by jyutao

1) Let us analyze the smallest single charged particle, electron. The electric field around electron should be determined by electron. If we track down the electric field down to the center of electron, the center point causes the electric field direct to all direction. This does not make sense. The big possibility is the center is empty.

The electric field from a point charge will radiate spherically. I don't know why you think that doesn't make sense or requires the centre to be empty.

pair production experiments shows that passing a gamma ray through the strong electromagnetic field near the nucleus results in the creation of an electron and positron. this means the electron and positron are made up of electromagnetic field.

No it doesn't. It just means that energy can be converted to mass, and vice versa.

Magnetic field is created by electric field too.

Correct

So the positron and electron are composed of electric field.

You are ignoring all the other properties (spin, mass, etc).

3) The properties of electric field: electric field tends to be in the same direction and even density.

Not necessarily. Only for specific types of sources.

When positron and electron meet with each other, the field from both particles will try to align with each other, we called it attraction force. because of the spherical structure, the field can align very well in some area and also cannot align very well in some other area. This means the attraction and repulsion exist in the same system. With the particles get closer, the repulsion increases. The distance between two particle will stop at some point when the attraction and repulsion balanced. This is the gamma ray photon. Photon is a double ball structured electric field.
Because the ball structure, they will roll around each other try to reach balance. They cannot reach balance point forever. Since the ball have the same size, their rolling track is straight. That is why light cannot stop moving. Gamma ray has the highest density in the double ball. Other lower density double ball exists too. They have the same behavior, moving forever. We call them light.
When the photon is absorbed by a body, its own structure is damaged. The electric field from photon merged with the field in the body. Then causes the body rearrange. We call it change or energy level increase.
When an electron or particle transfers from one body to another, its basic structure keeps the same. Only the field around it rearranges with the new body. We call the particle matter.
If two charged particle with opposite charge on each other merged, some of part of them will forms gamma ray. We call them anti-matter to each other.
Then you can answer your question now.

No.

Why have you hijacked someone else's thread with this?


The electric field from a point charge will radiate spherically. I don't know why you think that doesn't make sense or requires the centre to be empty.



If you have a material, it makes a thing in some direction. How can a thing to make a field to all direction? I mean the central point of electron. It is opposite itself?

No it doesn't. It just means that energy can be converted to mass, and vice versa.

1) what does the "convert" means to material itself?
2)Photon is not energy before it is absorbed, even though physicist treats photon is energy. Photon is a moving particle.
3)I am talking about material changes. Mass and energy are concept to describe material.




Magnetic field is created by electric field too.


Correct. They are the something materially. That is why they can convert to each other.


So the positron and electron are composed of electric field.


You are ignoring all the other properties (spin, mass, etc).

Again, I am talking about material. Spin is the moving condition of material. I answered mass already.


3) The properties of electric field: electric field tends to be in the same direction and even density.


I said it tends to be, when it is bended or in an uneven density, it will tends to be back to satisfy its properties. We call this kind tendency force.

Because the radiation structure of electronic field in an electron and positron, when it is put in an parallel electric field, they cannot aligned with each other. the electron tries to adjust its position to reach the balance. We called it moving. We also called the electron is charged. Charge is because the radiation structure of electric field.

Originally Posted by jyutao

If you have a material, it makes a thing in some direction.

Electrons are not "material". (perhaps depending how you define the word.

How can a thing to make a field to all direction?

That would be a point charge. Although any spherically symmetrical charged body would do the same (outside the sphere, at least).
Example 4.1: Electric field of a uniformly charged sphere

As for the rest, "not even wrong" seems the easiest answer.

Originally Posted by jyutao

Since the direction property, electric field forms two kinds sphere structure, one is the electric field towards the center, the other one is outwards the center. They have the same size but opposite field direction.

Some clarification is needed. Are you saying that if I have a hollow sphere with a uniform charge distribution over the surface, there will be an electric field inside the sphere?

At the center, the field will be in opposite direction, it should be empty. Because this radiation structure electric field cannot align with a parallel electric field. The electron will move. We called the electron charged. Charge is caused by the sphere structure. Charge is not something. It is a phenomenon caused by structure.

Force is caused by the field cannot satisfied its properties too. When the electric field from two bodies cannot align very well, they will adjust their position to align with each other. We observed movement.

You may ask about the gravity. Since the electric field tends to form this stable spherical structure, electron and positron, and they attract each other to form big particle, the electron and positron is alternative in big particle, like proton, neutron, atom, planet etc. If you look at the field direction on the surface of the particle, the field direction is alternative. When two particle close to each other, the field from both particle will try to align with each other. we call it gravity. That is why gravity is always attractive. Only when the bodies get too close they will repel each. that is why we can stand on the earth.

There is no gravity between electrons.

Originally Posted by KJW

Originally Posted by jyutao

Since the direction property, electric field forms two kinds sphere structure, one is the electric field towards the center, the other one is outwards the center. They have the same size but opposite field direction.

Some clarification is needed. Are you saying that if I have a hollow sphere with a uniform charge distribution over the surface, there will be an electric field inside the sphere?

matter wave:

Because of the alternative direction of field on the surface of the particle, when another particle moves in this kind field, its track has wave phenomenon. We call it matter wave. Small particle, like electron etc, will show the wave manner stronger than the large particle, like earth etc.

Movement:

As I mentioned, Movement is caused by unbalance. A perfect aligned structure, like electron or positron should not move. But in our universe, we do not have this kind perfect structure particle exists. The field from one particle will meet the field from other particles before the field density drops to zero. Since the spherical structure of the basic block, they cannot form a perfect packed big particle to make the entire world stable. They keep moving to reach a balance condition. They will not reach it forever. that is why the world is change all the time.

This can also explain that movement is not relative. It has absolute meaning. Movement describes how unbalance a body is. Since we could not find a perfect balanced body, like a perfect electron, as reference, we wrongfully thought movement is relative.

Originally Posted by jyutao

At the center, the field will be in opposite direction

No. The electric field inside a hollow sphere with uniform charge distribution over the surface is zero everywhere as a result of Gauss's Law.

The electron has no surface, The electric field forms a ball-like structure with the field radiating outside. The densest area being near the center and gradually extending out into space with a decreasing density at a specified rate because only this structure can satisfy the uniform density of electric field. This radiating field can extend outward a great distance away, but as it spreads farther and farther from the center, its density decreases. From outside, it looks like a ball or particle.

Originally Posted by KJW

Originally Posted by jyutao

At the center, the field will be in opposite direction

No. The electric field inside a hollow sphere with uniform charge distribution over the surface is zero everywhere as a result of Gauss's Law.

Originally Posted by jyutao

Movement:

As I mentioned, Movement is caused by unbalance. A perfect aligned structure, like electron or positron should not move. But in our universe, we do not have this kind perfect structure particle exists. The field from one particle will meet the field from other particles before the field density drops to zero. Since the spherical structure of the basic block, they cannot form a perfect packed big particle to make the entire world stable. They keep moving to reach a balance condition. They will not reach it forever. that is why the world is change all the time.

This can also explain that movement is not relative. It has absolute meaning. Movement describes how unbalance a body is. Since we could not find a perfect balanced body, like a perfect electron, as reference, we wrongfully thought movement is relative.

This post is, in its entirety, unsupported, anti-scientific nonsense.

Then please post why a body moves? why does a body move?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by jyutao

Movement:

As I mentioned, Movement is caused by unbalance. A perfect aligned structure, like electron or positron should not move. But in our universe, we do not have this kind perfect structure particle exists. The field from one particle will meet the field from other particles before the field density drops to zero. Since the spherical structure of the basic block, they cannot form a perfect packed big particle to make the entire world stable. They keep moving to reach a balance condition. They will not reach it forever. that is why the world is change all the time.

This can also explain that movement is not relative. It has absolute meaning. Movement describes how unbalance a body is. Since we could not find a perfect balanced body, like a perfect electron, as reference, we wrongfully thought movement is relative.

This post is, in its entirety, unsupported, anti-scientific nonsense.

Originally Posted by jyutao

Then please post why a body moves? why does a body move?

To put this on your level:

Because any body must move to the music.

Originally Posted by jyutao

Then please post why a body moves? why does a body move?

Newton's First Law of Motion answers this.

Are you familiar with it?

Have you seen anything moves straight forever with constant speed in this world? Have you see any movement without friction? You may learned something. Please try to understand them.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by jyutao

Then please post why a body moves? why does a body move?

Newton's First Law of Motion answers this.

Are you familiar with it?

Originally Posted by jyutao

Have you seen anything moves straight forever with constant speed in this world? Have you see any movement without friction? You may learned something.

Which part of Newton's Laws did you not understand?

[QUOTE=jyutao;451482]Have you seen anything moves straight forever with constant speed in this world? Have you see any movement without friction? You may learned something. Please try to understand them.



[QUOTE]

Friction is indeed a very common effect in practice. But what I observe is that, the more it is reduced, then closer one gets to movement in a straight line at constant velocity, in the absence of any other net force operating. So Newton's First Law looks pretty sound to me - as it does to just about everyone else.

I think you need to do some serious explanatory work to show you are not a jerk.

Originally Posted by jyutao

Have you seen anything moves straight forever with constant speed in this world?

If that's your experimental requirement, then you have set unreasonable expectations. We have not had instruments "forever" so we cannot have made measurements for "forever." You know this.

Have you see any movement without friction?

Yes. Superconductivity is a great example. Or the "orbiting" of electrons about a nucleus.

You may learned something.

I endeavour to learn every day. And also to unlearn (incorrect things), which is just as important. I recommend that you do both.

Please try to understand them.

Oh, the irony!

Superconductivity and orbital electron is not moving straight.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by jyutao

Have you seen anything moves straight forever with constant speed in this world?

If that's your experimental requirement, then you have set unreasonable expectations. We have not had instruments "forever" so we cannot have made measurements for "forever." You know this.

Have you see any movement without friction?

Yes. Superconductivity is a great example. Or the "orbiting" of electrons about a nucleus.

You may learned something.

I endeavour to learn every day. And also to unlearn (incorrect things), which is just as important. I recommend that you do both.

Please try to understand them.

Oh, the irony!

give me an example" a body moving with constant velocity and straight"


[QUOTE=exchemist;451499][QUOTE=jyutao;451482]Have you seen anything moves straight forever with constant speed in this world? Have you see any movement without friction? You may learned something. Please try to understand them.

Friction is indeed a very common effect in practice. But what I observe is that, the more it is reduced, then closer one gets to movement in a straight line at constant velocity, in the absence of any other net force operating. So Newton's First Law looks pretty sound to me - as it does to just about everyone else.

I think you need to do some serious explanatory work to show you are not a jerk.

Originally Posted by jyutao

give me an example" a body moving with constant velocity and straight"

Why?
How about Voyager? (If not currently it shortly will be).

Originally Posted by jyutao

Superconductivity and orbital electron is not moving straight.

Since I never said that they did, I'm not sure what you're point is. Look carefully at what I wrote. It was in response to your question "Have you see any movement without friction?" And I offered superconductivity and "orbiting" electrons as examples of frictionless movement.

Are you now trying to argue that frictionless motion is possible for "not-moving straight" objects, but not for straight-moving objects?

jyutao,

I see that you have very few postings in this forum. I think you will find that in all forums one of the prime requisites is to follow the subject of the thread. In all cases the subject can be seen in the opening posting. In this case the subject is a question about whether there is, or should be, anti-energy. Although you talked about electrons and positron annihilation, you have veered too far from the subject.

Changing the subject is called thread hijacking. I understand by your language that English may not be your first language. You may have something interesting to discuss but it is unacceptable to do so in someone else's thread. This is why Strange asked:

"Why have you hijacked someone else's thread with this?"

Your ideas are not mainstream so you should start your own thread in the New Ideas forum. Otherwise you will find little agreement or encouraging replies in other peoples threads. For your best image and to get your desired messages out there, I believe it would be wise for you to learn the proper etiquette of science forums.

[QUOTE=jyutao;451550]give me an example" a body moving with constant velocity and straight"


[QUOTE=exchemist;451499]

Originally Posted by jyutao

Have you seen anything moves straight forever with constant speed in this world? Have you see any movement without friction? You may learned something. Please try to understand them.

Friction is indeed a very common effect in practice. But what I observe is that, the more it is reduced, then closer one gets to movement in a straight line at constant velocity, in the absence of any other net force operating. So Newton's First Law looks pretty sound to me - as it does to just about everyone else.

I think you need to do some serious explanatory work to show you are not a jerk.

No. This is the same tiresome tactic creationists use. I have no obligation to defend well-established mechanics to you. The way it works is explained in plenty of places on the internet and in countless books, as you well know.

If you've got a problem with something in established science, then it is for YOU to make YOUR case for an alternative and why it has superior explanatory and predictive power, not the other way round.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Newton's First Law of Motion answers this.

Are you familiar with it?

This crackpot refuses to acknowledge the validity of Newton's laws, relativity, quantum mechanics and - come to think of it - pretty much all of physics. Just ignore him. Complete waste of bandwidth.

The way it works is explained in plenty of places on the internet and in countless books, as you well know.

He doesn't want to understand or learn, he prefers to continue believing his own nonsense. Seen it all before, haven't we ??

jyutao:

In future, please don't hijack other people's threads in order to push your own non-mainstream ideas. This is a warning. In future, create your own threads in the New Hypothesis or Pseudoscience sections. Your next infraction will result in a temporary suspension.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

For your best image and to get your desired messages out there, I believe it would be wise for you to learn the proper etiquette of science forums.

I would start with learning some basic science. Why you defend someone posting such utter drivel is beyond me. Or ... maybe not ...

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forrest noble

For your best image and to get your desired messages out there, I believe it would be wise for you to learn the proper etiquette of science forums.

I would start with learning some basic science. Why you defend someone posting such utter drivel is beyond me. Or ... maybe not ...

I think he has more than a basic idea of the related science. I am not defending him either, or anyone making up their own science before understanding mainstream science first, but I do encourage individual thinking which I think he has done, right or wrong.

His ideas of Newton's first law of motion, considering observations like the Pioneer anomaly, may have some merit in my opinion. Not only do the Pioneer, Voyagers seem to have slowed down a hair, all are also off course to a certain extent. There are conventional explanations for what has been observed, but when it happens to different free moving spacecraft in a similar way, it is harder to explain. Slowing down could be background field drag, like dark matter etc. , and "off course" could be caused by directional background field flow, or other external sources. Even these possibilities, however, do not violate Newton's first law because it has the additional statement "unless acted upon by a force."

When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force

Originally Posted by forrest noble

His ideas of Newton's first law of motion, considering observations like the Pioneer anomaly, may have some merit in my opinion.

Opinions are a dime a dozen, if that. They certainly don't count much for science. And the science is that there is no "Pioneer anomaly," no matter how ardently you might wish to cling to that fantasy. Turyshev et al. (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2507v1) did truly heroic things to provide quantitative reconciliation between theory and observation.

... the Pioneer, Voyagers seem to have slowed down a hair, all are also off course to a certain extent.

The Voyagers are "three-axis stabilized" craft. The uncertainties introduced by the associated control actions mask any putative effect that might be attributed to new physics, or even the radiation recoil that Turyshev analysed for Pioneer. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed papers that claim useful data from the Voyagers in this context. Please cite an appropriate reference for your claim, Forrest.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by forrest noble

His ideas of Newton's first law of motion, considering observations like the Pioneer anomaly, may have some merit in my opinion.

The Voyagers are "three-axis stabilized" craft. The uncertainties introduced by the associated control actions mask any putative effect that might be attributed to new physics, or even the radiation recoil that Turyshev analysed for Pioneer. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed papers that claim useful data from the Voyagers in this context. Please cite an appropriate reference for your claim, Forrest.

Section : What is the Pioreer anomaly? see the second paragraph quoted from link below

The Pioneer anomaly was first detected with the radio signals that scientists use to track the movements of Pioneer 10, the first probe to visit the planet Jupiter. Since then, it has been detected on a variety of unmanned, far-out space probes, including Pioneer 11, Voyagers 1 & 2, Galileo, and Ulysses.

The Answer to The Pioneer Anomaly - Unexpected Deceleration in Unmanned Spacecraft

I agree with your statement that stabilizing thrusters could mask such a putative effect, but according to some sources the effect has been observed in the data of more than one different type of space probe as indicated in the above quote.

Quite a few people (you know the sort) refer to a mythical Voyager Anomaly. When pressed, they point to Pioneer or change the subject...

Originally Posted by forrest noble

What is the Pioreer anomaly? section : second paragraph quoted: link below

The Pioneer anomaly was first detected with the radio signals that scientists use to track the movements of Pioneer 10, the first probe to visit the planet Jupiter. Since then, it has been detected on a variety of unmanned, far-out space probes, including Pioneer 11, Voyagers 1 & 2, Galileo, and Ulysses.

The Answer to The Pioneer Anomaly - Unexpected Deceleration in Unmanned Spacecraft

I agree with your statement that stabilizing thrusters could mask such a putative effect, but according to some sources the effect has been observed in the data of more than one different type of space probe as indicated in the above quote.

Here's yet another example of your remarkable ability to spout bullshit without shame. You selectively cut-and-paste a bit out of context, leaving the casual reader with a wholly distorted picture of what the paper/article actually says. That's a form of dishonesty, Forrest. John Galt just called you on this on another thread. Yet you persist. That calls for a strong response. Do you ever actually read the articles you link to? Do you ever actually read peer-reviewed journals? Do you know how to separate fact from fiction?

These are rhetorical questions, to which the answers are clear.

Had you honestly cited the article you linked to, you would have presented this:

Originally Posted by article

And the Answer to the Pioneer Anamoly [sic] is...

The cause of the anomaly is light pressure. Light in this case is infrared light—heat—generated by the radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG) used to power the probe and the electronics within Pioneer...

This conclusion was the result of hours of painstaking analysis of over 30 years of data from both Pioneer 1 and 2 by Slava G. Turyshev from JPL and Viktor T. Toth.

Note that the article cites the same paper I linked you to. That same paper, by the way, also discusses why the control methods used for Voyager introduce so much kinematic noise that one cannot draw any useful conclusions from that data set.

As to Voyager, I've challenged you to cite a peer-reviewed reference for your assertions. Instead of doing so, you continue to spout your ill-informed opinions, while ignoring what the peer-reviewed literature (including one that you've indirectly linked to) says. That sort of behavior -- plus your unfortunate penchant for intellectually dishonest tactics -- invites mockery and scorn. You have only yourself to blame.

ETA: Even your beloved Wikipedia has no entry for a "Voyager anomaly." Do you know why?

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by forrest noble

What is the Pioneer anomaly? section : second paragraph quoted: link below

The Pioneer anomaly was first detected with the radio signals that scientists use to track the movements of Pioneer 10, the first probe to visit the planet Jupiter. Since then, it has been detected on a variety of unmanned, far-out space probes, including Pioneer 11, Voyagers 1 & 2, Galileo, and Ulysses.

The Answer to The Pioneer Anomaly - Unexpected Deceleration in Unmanned Spacecraft

I agree with your statement that stabilizing thrusters could mask such a putative effect, but according to some sources the effect has been observed in the data of more than one different type of space probe as indicated in the above quote.

Here's yet another example of your remarkable ability to spout bullshit without shame. You selectively cut-and-paste a bit out of context, leaving the casual reader with a wholly distorted picture of what the paper/article actually says. That's a form of dishonesty, Forrest. John Galt just called you on this on another thread. Yet you persist. That calls for a strong response. Do you ever actually read the articles you link to? Do you ever actually read peer-reviewed journals? Do you know how to separate fact from fiction?

These are rhetorical questions, to which the answers are clear.

Had you honestly cited the article you linked to, you would have presented this:

Originally Posted by article

And the Answer to the Pioneer Anomaly [sic] is...

The cause of the anomaly is light pressure. Light in this case is infrared light—heat—generated by the radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG) used to power the probe and the electronics within Pioneer...

This conclusion was the result of hours of painstaking analysis of over 30 years of data from both Pioneer 1 and 2 by Slava G. Turyshev from JPL and Viktor T. Toth.

Note that the article cites the same paper I linked you to. That same paper, by the way, also discusses why the control methods used for Voyager introduce so much kinematic noise that one cannot draw any useful conclusions from that data set.

As to Voyager, I've challenged you to cite a peer-reviewed reference for your assertions. Instead of doing so, you continue to spout your ill-informed opinions, while ignoring what the peer-reviewed literature (including one that you've indirectly linked to) says. That sort of behavior -- plus your unfortunate penchant for intellectually dishonest tactics -- invites mockery and scorn. You have only yourself to blame.

ETA: Even your beloved Wikipedia has no entry for a "Voyager anomaly." Do you know why?

I challenge you to stop talking crap in most of your postings. You rarely ever supply any source for your unsupported statements when asked. Clean up your profanity, always imagined accusations, and your obviously obnoxious attitude. I gave the source of my statement that said that many spacecraft have experienced similar effects as the Pioneer anomaly. Here is the quote again.

The Pioneer anomaly was first detected with the radio signals that scientists use to track the movements of Pioneer 10, the first probe to visit the planet Jupiter. Since then, it (this effect) has been detected on a variety of unmanned, far-out space probes, including Pioneer 11, Voyagers 1 & 2, Galileo, and Ulysses.

(bold and parenthesis added)

http://www.brighthub.com/science/spa...les/40095.aspx

Find your own source of any kind that states that no other type of probe/spacecraft has experienced this effect, contrary to the link and quote that I just provided above. Spend your own time looking for sources. I've already supplied my source for my original statement, which you contradicted. You rarely offer references/ sources to anyone, even upon request, concerning your own often contradicting and sometimes totally wrong, unsupported statements. Stop your profanity and immature behavior. It is a bad example for any students reading here, concerning learning the proper behavior in a science forum. Students instead should learn science and adult behavior, not bad manners and juvenile behavior like many of your ill-considered statements.

Your postings testify that you may be one of the most ignorant persons here concerning your manners and following the rules of the forum. Contrary remarks should concern what has been said rather than attacking the person who made the statements. Maybe it's because you may not like what is being said but at the time you can't think of a valid response so you instead feel it necessary to revert to name calling and Ad hominems, hoping to somehow cast doubt on an author or link's credibility.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I now challenge you to stop talking crap in most of your postings. You fairly never supply any source for your statements when asked. Clean up your profanity and your obnoxious attitude. I gave my source that said that many spacecraft have experienced similar effects as the Pioneer anomaly. Here is the quote again.

I've given you a citation -- Turyshev et al. It's even cited by the article you linked to.

The Pioneer anomaly was first detected with the radio signals that scientists use to track the movements of Pioneer 10, the first probe to visit the planet Jupiter. Since then, it (this effect) has been detected on a variety of unmanned, far-out space probes, including Pioneer 11, Voyagers 1 & 2, Galileo, and Ulysses.

(bold added)

Add all the boldface you want. It's idiotic.

Just to remind you, here's what I said, exactly:

"The Voyagers are "three-axis stabilized" craft. The uncertainties introduced by the associated control actions mask any putative effect that might be attributed to new physics, or even the radiation recoil that Turyshev analysed for Pioneer. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed papers that claim useful data from the Voyagers in this context. Please cite an appropriate reference for your claim, Forrest."

By "appropriate" is meant "peer-reviewed," as is clear from the penultimate sentence above, and from my repeated subsequent posts. That is, I've asked you repeatedly for a peer-reviewed source for a Voyager anomaly and from which "useful data...in this context" may be obtained. You have consistently failed to produce one. You do it again here. That's why you've now aggressively devolved to calling my posts crap. It's laughable and sad, for anyone reading our exchanges will see the contrast between my data-filled postings, and your torrents of shite.

I challenge you to find your own peer-reviewed source that states that no other type of spacecraft has experience this effect.

Shift of burden of proof noted. I similarly challenge you to cite a peer-reviewed source that states that invisible pink unicorns don't live in your colon.

Spend your own time looking for sources. I've already supplied the source for my original statement,

You have not supplied a peer-reviewed source. That's what I asked for. Quit you dishonest behavior, Forrest. It's tiresome enough having to correct your honest misinformation. It's irritating to have to correct your actively dishonest misinformation as well.

...which you rarely do when asked concerning your own often contradicting unsupported statements.

I always supply references when asked. I can't help it if you dishonestly ignore them, Forrest.

Stop your profanity and immature behavior which is a bad example for any students reading here. Students instead should learn science and adult behavior, not bad manners and juvenile behavior.

Again, Forrest, you are not a moderator. If you have a problem with a post, report it. I seem to recall that the last couple of times you complained about my tone, you were the one placed, er, "on leave." Care to try for a third?

How about this: You quit behaving dishonestly, quit posting crap, quit making up shit. And then I'll stop complaining about it.

Deal?

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I now challenge you to stop talking crap in most of your postings. You fairly never supply any source for your statements when asked. Clean up your profanity and your obnoxious attitude. I gave my source that said that many spacecraft have experienced similar effects as the Pioneer anomaly.

I've given you a citation -- Turyshev et al. It's even cited by the article you linked to.

Your link does not contradict my statements or quote above that other craft appear to have also experienced the Pioneer anomaly, not just Pioneers 10 & 11.

Whether the Voyager spacecraft have experienced this effect may be debatable. The point was that heat effects may explain away the pioneer anomaly but the same effect appears on most all spacecraft. Here is another quote from the same link.

Same Effect, Different Spacecraft

Many of the explanations for the slowdown depended on the specific spacecraft, for instance, on a gas leak or a malfunctioning thruster from the particular design of the particular spacecraft. However, the Pioneer anomaly has been observed by all such spacecraft, so having different explanations for the individual spacecraft for a single effect doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If you wish to contradict this quote above (taken from the link below), find a link to support your statements, one that precisely contradicts the above statement, not just unsupported statements of your own and personal accusations like usual

The Answer to The Pioneer Anomaly - Unexpected Deceleration in Unmanned Spacecraft

It bears repeating. Putting forrest on ignore was a smart move.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I now challenge you to stop talking crap in most of your postings. You fairly never supply any source for your statements when asked. Clean up your profanity and your obnoxious attitude. I gave my source that said that many spacecraft have experienced similar effects as the Pioneer anomaly.

I've given you a citation -- Turyshev et al. It's even cited by the article you linked to.

Your link does not contradict my statements or quote above that other craft appear to have also experienced the Pioneer anomaly, not just Pioneers 10 & 11.

Continuing your dishonesty, eh Forrest? Tsk, tsk. You continue to shift the burden and change the subject. Knowing your habit of such tactics, I took pains to remind you of the challenge I issued to you originally. I see that I must do so again:

I said this:

Originally Posted by what_tk421_said

"The Voyagers are "three-axis stabilized" craft. The uncertainties introduced by the associated control actions mask any putative effect that might be attributed to new physics, or even the radiation recoil that Turyshev analysed for Pioneer. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed papers that claim useful data from the Voyagers in this context. Please cite an appropriate reference for your claim, Forrest."

{bold giganticfont(tm) added}

You still have not provided a peer-reviewed reference. I have pointed this out to you now at least 4 times previously. All you have done is link to an online popsci article, one which contains a link to a paper by Turyshev, which paper explains that there is no anomaly.

It is obvious that, caught once again with your pants down, so to speak, you've chosen an unethical path. But cutting through the noise you've raised, one sees a conspicuous absence of a peer-reviewed reference to support your claim. It is reprehensible for you to claim that I am the unresponsive party.

Quit your bullshitting, Forrest. Just admit that you are wrong. The Pioneers exhibit no behaviors that aren't fully explained by conventional physics (hence, no actual anomaly). The Voyagers have too much self-induced kinematic noise to admit to the same type of analysis as the Pioneers. Don't keep asking me for a reference, Forrest. You are the one who has the burden to produce a paper that shows that the Voyagers' trajectories can be analyzed the same way. If you are confused, re-read the giganticfont(tm) text above.

By the way, data from the Cassini mission recently provided additional support for the analysis by Turyshev et al. Look it up. I won't do your research work for you.

In brief, there is no evidence of a true anomaly in any of these data. Again, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me, to show otherwise.

And just to be clear, linking to more online webzines is not the same as referencing a peer-reviewed paper, so quit pretending otherwise. By now, you should know the difference, but apparently in your desperation to keep the fight alive, you persist in posting quotes from such sources (which may be unreliable or out of date, or both).

tk421,

.........Continuing your dishonesty, eh Forrest? Tsk, tsk. You continue to shift the burden and change the subject. Knowing your habit of such tactics, I took pains to remind you of the challenge I issued to you originally. I see that I must do so again ................

You seem to be often confused and not able to follow a thread or discussion. You first contradicted my posting #31 with your posting #32, where you asked me to cite a reference.
In posting #33 I agreed with your comment that any voyager anomaly, if there was one, would be difficult to determine for the reasons your explained. I then gave my reference for my statement and provided a quote from the reference where it said:

my quote posting #33 was:

I agree with your statement that stabilizing thrusters could mask such a putative effect (for the voyagers), but according to some sources the effect has been observed in the data of more than one different type of space probe as indicated in the above quote

. (parenthesis added)

My quote from the link was this:

The Pioneer anomaly was first detected with the radio signals that scientists use to track the movements of Pioneer 10, the first probe to visit the planet Jupiter. Since then, it has been detected on a variety of unmanned, far-out space probes, including Pioneer 11, Voyagers 1 & 2, Galileo, and Ulysses.

This quote included such anomalies observed for the Pioneers, Voyagers, and all of the above mentioned spacecraft.

Then you responded with: "As to Voyager, I've challenged you to cite a peer-reviewed reference for your assertions."

Where your original request was : "Please cite an appropriate reference for your claim, Forrest.

Since I already agreed with you before that that such an effect would be hard to detect for the Voyagers but that such an effect had been reported by sources.

The entire point was that reports of explaining the Pioneer anomaly away may not be the whole story. And you continued with your rants of dishonesty on your postings.

I agree with your statement that stabilizing thrusters could mask such a putative effect, but according to some sources the effect has been observed in the data of more than one different type of space probe as indicated in the above quote.


Your link does not contradict my statements or quote above that other craft appear to have also experienced the Pioneer anomaly, not just Pioneers 10 & 11.[/QUOTE]

.........................In brief, there is no evidence of a true anomaly in any of these data. Again, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me, to show otherwise.

Yes, I made the statement that the Pioneer anomaly may not be solved since the effect was observed concerning other spacecraft. I quoted from the link which spacecraft they were referring to.

Then I posted this quotation from the same link.

Same Effect, Different Spacecraft

Many of the explanations for the slowdown depended on the specific spacecraft, for instance, on a gas leak or a malfunctioning thruster from the particular design of the particular spacecraft. However, the Pioneer anomaly has been observed by all such spacecraft, so having different explanations for the individual spacecraft for a single effect doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I showed you my link that stated that the "Pioneer anomaly" may not be resolved by the quote from the same link.

1) You can say you do not believe my link, 2) you can say that you think the source is spurious, or 3) provide your own link to the contrary.

The burden is on you. The burden is always on the contradicting person if he has provided no support for his statements or assertions. Your assertions have been unsupported each and every time where you have said my statements are wrong, without providing details involving which statement(s) and providing your own link(s) that contradict them.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

tk421,

.........Continuing your dishonesty, eh Forrest? Tsk, tsk. You continue to shift the burden and change the subject. Knowing your habit of such tactics, I took pains to remind you of the challenge I issued to you originally. I see that I must do so again ................

You seem to be often confused and not able to follow a thread or discussion..

{BS truncated}

Here, again, is what I wrote:

Originally Posted by what_tk421_said

"The Voyagers are "three-axis stabilized" craft. The uncertainties introduced by the associated control actions mask any putative effect that might be attributed to new physics, or even the radiation recoil that Turyshev analysed for Pioneer. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed papers that claim useful data from the Voyagers in this context. Please cite an appropriate reference for your claim, Forrest."

It takes an active act of dishonesty, given our long history, for you to ignore the penultimate sentence (in case you don't know what "penultimate" means, it means "the one before the last"). Thus the meaning of "appropriate" is clearly "peer-reviewed," which is understood anyway for a science forum. Even if you somehow "honestly" overlooked it the very first time, my repeated insistence on a peer-reviewed reference should have been a clue for you. But again, by the ordinary standards of science, a peer-reviewed reference is automatically to be assumed when one challenges another. You know this, for you keep insisting that others do the same for you.

So, again, please cite an appropriate reference for your claim, Forrest. By "appropriate," I continue to mean "peer-reviewed." In a real journal. Not a webzine. Not a press release. Not a flaky vixra-type "vanity press" venue. I mean a paper that real, working scientists read.

Got it now, Forrest?

The reason for belaboring this point is an attempt to salvage some pedagogical value from this thread. In your zeal to prove that "conventional" physics is broken, you use every pretext to support your belief. In this thread, you invoked a minor puzzle in the trajectory of deep-space probes to keep alive the notion that new physics is needed. That is the extraordinary claim, so the burden is therefore on you, and on you alone, to support that claim. You have failed repeatedly to do so, and instead dishonestly attempt to shift the burden to me. However, conventional physics is by default assumed to be correct. Stop demanding that I defend conventional physics. That's not my problem. I've already linked you to a paper that explains the Pioneer anomaly. Stop bringing up the Voyagers unless you can meet the challenge I issued to you.

In brief, put up or shut up.

So the only evidence to support the Mythical Voyager Anomaly is someone who mentions the Myth in passing. For some reason I am just not convinced...

Originally Posted by forrest noble

The burden is on you.

And, once more, we hear the plaintive cry of the crank: "PROVE ME WRONG!!"

tk421,

The entire point was that reports of explaining the Pioneer anomaly away may not be the whole story. And you continued with your rants of dishonesty like always.

I agreed with your statement that stabilizing thrusters could mask such a putative effect of Voyagers, but according multiple sources the effect has been observed in the data of many different types of space probes as indicated in the quotes and links above and below.

Your link does not contradict my statements in any way. As shown both above and below other craft appear to have also experienced the Pioneer anomaly, not just Pioneers 10 & 11.

your quote:

........................In brief, there is no evidence of a true anomaly in any of these data. Again, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me, to show otherwise.

(quote from my link)

The Pioneer anomaly was first detected with the radio signals that scientists use to track the movements of Pioneer 10, the first probe to visit the planet Jupiter. Since then, it (this effect) has been detected on a variety of unmanned, far-out space probes, including Pioneer 11, Voyagers 1 & 2, Galileo, and Ulysses.

Then I posted this quotation from the same link.

Same Effect, Different Spacecraft

Many of the explanations for the slowdown depended on the specific spacecraft, for instance, on a gas leak or a malfunctioning thruster from the particular design of the particular spacecraft. However, the Pioneer anomaly has been observed by all such spacecraft, so having different explanations for the individual spacecraft for a single effect doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

both quotes from this link below:

The Pioneer Anomaly still Unresolved

Then from this link:

Apr 24, 2013
Anomalous Trajectories
Scientists are puzzled by unexpected acceleration in several unmanned spacecraft as they flew toward the Sun.

More space probes are now being added to the mix. After examining telemetry from NEAR-Shoemaker (now resting on the surface of Asteroid Eros), the Galileo mission to Jupiter, Cassini-Huygens (one part each orbiting Saturn and the other resting on the surface of Titan), the Rosetta cometary probe and the Messenger mission to Mercury, a similar discrepancy has been detected.

Anomalous Trajectories | thunderbolts.info

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Above is another summary of craft that allegedly have experienced Anomalous Trajectories. There is no mention above as there was in the first summary which included Ulysses , Voyagers, or Pioneers whose missions were the outer solar system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"The modest, mighty Voyager and Pioneer probes ----- "This meant that the Pioneers were much more precisely navigated— a force (anomalous Trajectories and acceleration) the size of the Pioneer anomaly was not detectable on the Voyagers."(parenthesis added)

This statement does not imply that there was no detectable aberration of anomalous acceleration in the Voyagers, only that it probably could not be determined with statistical significance or certainty. On three different prior postings I agreed with you that the Voyager’s navigation system did not readily lend itself to the detection of the Pioneer anomaly. I mentioned the Voyager spacecraft because they were mentioned in my link as possible anomalies as indicated in above quotes and links.

Your emphasis on “Voyagers” was a straw man. The point for the OP was that spacecraft do not seem to follow completely predictable paths, based upon the OP's comments. The link statements support assertions that the Pioneer anomaly still remains also with observations of other spacecraft.

Voyager, the Pioneer anomaly, and NASA’s good old days. - Slate Magazine

Originally Posted by forrest noble

tk421,

The entire point was that reports of explaining the Pioneer anomaly away may not be the whole story. And you continued with your rants of dishonesty like always.

Your link does not contradict my statements in any way. As shown both above and below other craft appear to have also experienced the Pioneer anomaly, not just Pioneers 10 & 11.

{various links to magazine articles removed}

{BS truncated}

Here, again, is what I wrote:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by [B

what_tk421_said[/B] ]

"The Voyagers are "three-axis stabilized" craft. The uncertainties introduced by the associated control actions mask any putative effect that might be attributed to new physics, or even the radiation recoil that Turyshev analysed for Pioneer. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed papers that claim useful data from the Voyagers in this context. Please cite an appropriate reference for your claim, Forrest."

It takes an active act of dishonesty, given our long history, for you to continue to ignore the penultimate sentence (in case you don't know what "penultimate" means, it means "the one before the last"). Thus the meaning of "appropriate" is clearly "peer-reviewed," which is understood anyway for a science forum. Even if you somehow "honestly" overlooked it the very first time, my repeated insistence on a peer-reviewed reference should have been a clue for you. But again, by the ordinary standards of science, a peer-reviewed reference is automatically to be assumed when one challenges another. You know this, for you keep insisting that others do the same for you.

So, again, please cite an appropriate reference for your claim, Forrest. By "appropriate," I continue to mean "peer-reviewed." In a real journal. Not a webzine. Not a press release. Not a flaky vixra-type "vanity press" venue. I mean a paper that real, working scientists read.

Got it now, Forrest?

The reason for belaboring this point is an attempt to salvage some pedagogical value from this thread. In your zeal to prove that "conventional" physics is broken, you use every pretext to support your belief. In this thread, you invoked a minor puzzle in the trajectory of deep-space probes to keep alive the notion that new physics is needed. That is the extraordinary claim, so the burden is therefore on you, and on you alone, to support that claim. You have failed repeatedly to do so, and instead dishonestly attempt to shift the burden to me. However, conventional physics is by default assumed to be correct. Stop demanding that I defend conventional physics. That's not my problem. I've already linked you to a paper that explains the Pioneer anomaly. Stop bringing up the Voyagers unless you can meet the challenge I issued to you.

In brief, put up or shut up.

And for gawd's sake, stop arguing about statements that I did not make. It is another blatantly dishonest and feeble attempt by you to deflect attention. I have quoted directly from my original post several times now, increasing the font size so that there can be no doubt about what I have asked for.

And certainly stop posting links to online magazine articles. I have already taught you that those are not peer-reviewed sources.

Forrest is on ignore for obvious reasons (mainly the sort of dishonesty, ignorance, evasiveness and general unpleasantness that he is apparently showing here) but ...

Forrest: There is no data on this mythical Voyager Anomaly. If there were, you would be able to provide a link to that data. Providing a link to an article by someone who is as confused as you is not data. Without any data supporting this myth, I have to conclude that it is a myth unsupported by any data.

I spent an inordinate amount of time looking for information on this when it came up with someone else on another forum. There appears to be no information about any Voyager anomaly. Lots of people seem to talk about it as if it were a thing. But it obviously isn't. But then you are fond of spouting unsupported nonsense about things that don't exist.

And I still don't understand why you are standing up for jyutao as if he were some sort of underdog as, even by your abysmally low standards, he was just spouting complete gibberish. It is yet another example of you polluting other peoples threads with your putrid crap.

Originally Posted by Strange

Forrest is on ignore for obvious reasons (mainly the sort of dishonesty, ignorance, evasiveness and general unpleasantness that he is apparently showing here) but ...

Forrest: There is no data on this mythical Voyager Anomaly. If there were, you would be able to provide a link to that data. Providing a link to an article by someone who is as confused as you is not data. Without any data supporting this myth, I have to conclude that it is a myth unsupported by any data.

I spent an inordinate amount of time looking for information on this when it came up with someone else on another forum. There appears to be no information about any Voyager anomaly. Lots of people seem to talk about it as if it were a thing. But it obviously isn't. But then you are fond of spouting unsupported nonsense about things that don't exist.

And I still don't understand why you are standing up for jyutao as if he were some sort of underdog as, even by your abysmally low standards, he was just spouting complete gibberish. It is yet another example of you polluting other peoples threads with your putrid crap.

Strange,

Except for your first sentence and a few unpleasant references, your posting is generally pleasant and science based. Thanks for that A dead horse is now being whipped. I've presented the information that I could find concerning the Pioneer anomaly regarding other spacecraft, with no details concerning Voyager course problems for reasons that all have agreed upon since the beginning of this discussion, including me.

My evidence has been presented and apparently tk421 has presented his entire case.

The reader can make up his own mind if the Pioneer Anomaly still might persist concerning other spacecraft mentioned, based upon the links that I've provided (exclude Voyagers from 1st link if you like). As to the OP, he seems to have given up.

In the coming years I expect to hear of more discussions of course information concerning existing spacecraft, and discussions of problems with new spacecraft if the problem of anomalous acceleration in reality has not been resolved.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by Strange

Forrest is on ignore for obvious reasons (mainly the sort of dishonesty, ignorance, evasiveness and general unpleasantness that he is apparently showing here) but ...

Forrest: There is no data on this mythical Voyager Anomaly. If there were, you would be able to provide a link to that data. Providing a link to an article by someone who is as confused as you is not data. Without any data supporting this myth, I have to conclude that it is a myth unsupported by any data.

I spent an inordinate amount of time looking for information on this when it came up with someone else on another forum. There appears to be no information about any Voyager anomaly. Lots of people seem to talk about it as if it were a thing. But it obviously isn't. But then you are fond of spouting unsupported nonsense about things that don't exist.

And I still don't understand why you are standing up for jyutao as if he were some sort of underdog as, even by your abysmally low standards, he was just spouting complete gibberish. It is yet another example of you polluting other peoples threads with your putrid crap.

Strange,... I've presented the information that I could find concerning the Pioneer anomaly regarding other spacecraft,with no details concerning the Voyagers for reasons that everybody seems to agree upon.

Finally. Why do you insist on making these trivial things so damn hard?

My lack of evidence has been presented

fixed it for you.

and apparently tk421 has presented his entire case.

I didn't have a case to present. I simply -- and repeatedly -- challenged you to back up your statement regarding Voyager.

The reader can make up his own mind if the Pioneer Anomaly still persists with the data from other spacecraft.

That's always true; opinions are personal, and as I pointed out long ago in this thread, they count for little, Forrest. The point here, in a science forum, is to focus on what has been vetted, not opined. And to date, Turyshev's heroic analysis stands as the best to date. Those who cling to the hope that there nonetheless remains, in the residual noise in Turyshev et al's data after accounting for recoil, evidence of new physics will be disappointed that Cassini's behavior is also quantitatively consistent with RTG radiation recoil (Forrest -- you're just going to have to look that up yourself; I will not do your homework for you. If you have enough time to dredge up all the crappy popsci articles you constantly come up with, you certainly have enough time to find a real, peer-reviewed paper). The residual noise after taking that recoil into account is of the opposite sign as that of the Pioneer data. That is, the putative "new physics" affects the two craft oppositely; it's noise, not data. Thus, the best scientific hypothesis is that these craft show no evidence of new physics. It was also pointed out very early on in the "Pioneer shows an anomaly" days that any new physics would curiously have to affect the tiny craft, but not the planets. Again, the best hypothesis we have to date is that these craft do not evince any behaviors that may be attributed scientifically to new physics.

And just to make sure that no reader is left with a false impression from your noise, there are no peer-reviewed papers that show otherwise. Sure, things could change tomorrow. But I'm talking about what we have now, based on the evidence.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by Strange

Forrest is on ignore for obvious reasons (mainly the sort of dishonesty, ignorance, evasiveness and general unpleasantness that he is apparently showing here) but ...

Forrest: There is no data on this mythical Voyager Anomaly. If there were, you would be able to provide a link to that data. Providing a link to an article by someone who is as confused as you is not data. Without any data supporting this myth, I have to conclude that it is a myth unsupported by any data.

I spent an inordinate amount of time looking for information on this when it came up with someone else on another forum. There appears to be no information about any Voyager anomaly. Lots of people seem to talk about it as if it were a thing. But it obviously isn't. But then you are fond of spouting unsupported nonsense about things that don't exist.

And I still don't understand why you are standing up for jyutao as if he were some sort of underdog as, even by your abysmally low standards, he was just spouting complete gibberish. It is yet another example of you polluting other peoples threads with your putrid crap.

Strange,

Except for your first sentence and a few unpleasent references, your posting is generally pleasant and science based. Thanks for that A dead horse is now being whipped. I've presented the information that I could find concerning the Pioneer anomaly regarding other spacecraft,with no details concerning the Voyagers for reasons that everybody seems to agree upon.

My evidence has been presented and apparently tk421 has presented his entire case.

The reader can make up his own mind if the Pioneer Anomaly still persists with the data from other spacecraft. As to the OP, he seems to have been squeezed out concerning his ideas.

In the coming years I expect to hear of more discussion of course information from existing spacecraft, and discussions of problems with new spacecraft if the problem of anomalous acceleration in reality has not been resolved.

You are being delusional. You have NOT presented evidence. Your continued refusal to even acknowledge the fact that no real data regarding anomalies concerning Voyager exists does nothing other than demonstrate your general thinking style that has produced the huge variety of nonsense you have expounded upon in this forum. It clearly shows that you only see what you want to see. Any reasonable person would simply have admitted that the webzine must have been mistaken. Simple as that. But not you, oh no.

Instead you make long posts, passionately reiterating the exact same sources, as if that is an answer to the repeated requests for peer reviewed substantiation. How can you possibly think that is ok? And yet again a thread is destroyed due to other people having to correct you when you make fallacious claims and you then holding steadfast to what you said, no matter how clearly you have been shown to be wrong. This is getting real old. Please think twice before posting in other people's threads from now on.

There are many universes as expressed by Mandelbrot ... I am being silenced by your so called 'community' ... I have the science , but they have the funding..., ask them why they still think the Big Bang started everything and why the anomolies?

You are so stuck in your intellectual mould that you miss the science..., and love of s incentive....., you poor men...., see the truth..., it is not what you think...

Ok ... I will add some perspective ..., of course there were many big bangs over time..., we are stupid to think otherwise..., the possibility exists for us to be involved in manipulation of time and space ..., this will not affect time as we know we it...., there is no timeline ..., our universe may remain separate, things will happen..., now it is up to you to find how....

Originally Posted by Jungle

Ok ... I will add some perspective ..., of course there were many big bangs over time..., we are stupid to think otherwise..., the possibility exists for us to be involved in manipulation of time and space ..., this will not affect time as we know we it...., there is no timeline ..., our universe may remain separate, things will happen..., now it is up to you to find how....

Please provide references for your claims.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

And you appear to be stuck in ignorance and woo. This is a particularly appaling place to be as it's inhabitants seem to think that making up random crap is a substitute for knowledge...

You are too small too see..., but one day you will... Small mind...

Originally Posted by Jungle

There are many universes as expressed by Mandelbrot ... I am being silenced by your so called 'community' ... I have the science , but they have the funding..., ask them why they still think the Big Bang started everything and why the anomolies?

Maybe in one of those other universes you will be permitted to spout unsupported nonsense on a science forum. You will not last long here with your current approach.

Originally Posted by Jungle

Originally Posted by PhDemon

And you appear to be stuck in ignorance and woo. This is a particularly appaling place to be as it's inhabitants seem to think that making up random crap is a substitute for knowledge...

You are too small too see..., but one day you will... Small mind...