February 7th, 2013, 01:14 PM
Please see the most recent summary of work that is in press.
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...ations-212.pdf
Any technical comments are appreciated.
Bonus question: Where does the demarcation between redshifted and blueshifted galaxies noticeably occur relative to the Earth?
Bonus question two: What is the most distant blueshifted galaxy that has been identified?
Not this again. It is utter nonsense.
Do a search, we have covered this before.
Outside our local group of galaxies.Originally Posted by goldberg lettuce
Andromeda.
How are measurements nonsense?
I know that the conclusion goes against the grain, but we are supposed to change our hypothesis due to experimental results, not our reality.
If you don't have technical comments, please don't post in this thread. That is all I am looking for and I posted it in the correct subforum
Why did you start a new thread on the same thing? Why not just rejoin the previous one?
I don't believe I have posted this paper that is currently in press.
SO put it in the existing thread, and carry on.
A 53 meg pdf?
What journal? I need to weed out my subscriptions.
Are you by any chance a "friend" of nsbm? Your choice of sources and posting style are eerily reminiscent...
I don't know if that is what the paper says, but someone is very confused about the difference between redenning and red-shift.Apparently, the redness of the Sun at the horizon is visible evidence to the naked eye on the lack of expansion of the universe
thanks for that saved me time and data allocation.A 53 meg pdf?
I have debated folks who had this same weird brain-dead idea that "conventional" physics fails to explain red sunsets and, additionally, blue skies and rainbows. In the end, it turned out that they were Relativity Deniers. To maintain some level of self-consistency, they had to become Classical Physics Deniers as well.
I am amazed that their heads didn't just explode from the cognitive conflict.
Last edited by tk421; February 7th, 2013 at 07:04 PM.
I have to admit, I am slightly curious as to how Rayleigh scattering and redshift are compared to predict the expansion of the universe. I can't make the connection, but physics are not my strong suit.
But Santilli is a known (anti-Einstein/ relativity) crank.
Just outside my front door.Bonus question: Where does the demarcation between redshifted and blueshifted galaxies noticeably occur relative to the Earth?
Wait, I know this one. Don't tell me... is it Thursday?Bonus question two: What is the most distant blueshifted galaxy that has been identified?
My god. This is what thescienceforum is all about?
Blah blah blah, all jokes and no technical responses whatsoever.
Serious scientists dismiss measurements with counter-measurements and not with this type of innuendo.
It's clear you are piling on as a team and for what aim? Discrediting advances over Einstein?
Okay then.
Please explain why the redness of the Sun when it is close to the horizon is visible evidence that the universe is not expanding. Let's discuss this.
SpeedFreek's generous offer aside, you must understand that scientists are under no obligation to waste time arguing with obvious nutjobs. Sorry, but one of the great achievements of the scientific method is a form of intellectual economy (e.g., as expressed in the so-called "laws" of nature). If one encounters a claimant who says "F=ma implies antigravity," I don't need to go further; he's wrong, plain and simple. If he wants to persist, he'll have to offer a convincing demonstration, not a link to a pdf written by a crank, and hosted on a crank website.
We know why the sun reddens as it sets, and we know that it has nothing whatever to do with evidence for or against universal expansion. I've already been around the block arguing with crackpots who hold otherwise, and feel no obligation to do so again.
That, like it or not, is in fact a scientific attitude. You just don't like it because you're on the pro-crank end of the argument.
Tough noogies.
I skimmed through the paper you posted here and I couldn't immediately see any significant difference from the last one you posted. Could you give us a quick summary of the key points and why they are significant.
You have had your two questions answered and you have contributed nothing "technical" to the discussion, so it seems a bit unreasonable to be making accusations like that.
And, in the guise of "IgOfEx" at CosmoQuest, he has explicitly stated his non-intent to defend the work. If that is the case here, then he is just here to spam us with what amounts to advertising for Santilli's latest Krachenwerke.You have had your two questions answered and you have contributed nothing "technical" to the discussion, so it seems a bit unreasonable to be making accusations like that.
if red light alone is the answer i have some stuff to sell
Thank you SpeedFreak, this is a decent question regarding an answer to the best of my understanding.
Measurements you can see in the paper (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...ations-212.pdf) done in the USA and Europe as well as for sunset and sunrise establish beyond the political concoction of the other posters and to my best understanding, that in the transition from the zenith to the horizon, there is a shift towards the red without any relative motion between the Earth and Sun.
More specifically the measurements establish that in the transition from the zenith to the horizon the original red light disappears and it is shifted towards the infrared band that did not exist at the zenith.
This is Santilli's IsoRedShift, now confirmed and published in various refereed journals.
Again to my best understanding, rayleigh and other scatterings do indeed apply but not for the direct sunlight.
Rayleigh scattering applies for sure the percentage of sunlight which is absorbed by our atmosphere and then scatters in all direction yielding the colors of our atmosphere. This is due to inelastic scattering with a huge loss of energy to air that has nothing to do with IRS. This situation has been well presented here: www.scientificethics.org/Criticisms-Gandzha.pdf
The consequential absence of the expansion of the universe seems obvious to me, but I could be wrong and I will appreciate technical counter criticisms.
In fact, Santilli's noted IRS of the sun is identical to the cosmological redshift - the galactic light that we receive from far away galaxies is entirely redshifted and the further away it gets the more redshifted it appears. There is a point that there are no visible blue shifted galaxies at all.
Therefore the redness of the sun at sunset is indeed visual evidence on Earth of redshift of light without relative motion.
To see the whole picture, you should look at the diagram Fig. 33 of the first quoted paper (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...ations-212.pdf)
You can clearly see that z2 = 2 x z1 for the Earth (E) but z2 = z1 for another observer such as Galaxy G. In this way Santilli proves that the conjecture of the expansion of the universe necessarily implies Earth at the center of the universe because of the acceleration of the expansion and establishes that these conjectures are catastrophically inconsistent.
Note the inconsistency persists under the far fetched conjecture that space itself is expanding because z2 = z1 for Galaxy G despite the expansion of space.
Any technical objection, please let me know as I want to settle this issue in my mind.
I think you have made mention of publication in peer reviewed journals before. I'm not sure you were able to provide any further details. Are you able to now?
Is that change in red shift supposed to be due to the increased amount of air that the light is passing through?Measurements you can see in the paper (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/d...ations-212.pdf) done in the USA and Europe as well as for sunset and sunrise establish beyond the political concoction of the other posters and to my best understanding, that in the transition from the zenith to the horizon, there is a shift towards the red without any relative motion between the Earth and Sun.
That is a fascinating website: International Committee on <br>Scientific Ethics and AccountabilityThis situation has been well presented here: www.scientificethics.org/Criticisms-Gandzha.pdf
Okay then.
Please explain why the redness of the Sun when it is close to the horizon is visible evidence that the universe is not expanding. Let's discuss this.
If there was actually an answer, it would have been where the following statment was.
The consequential absence of the expansion of the universe seems obvious to me,
There are many questions about that paper and the experimental methods used. Among the major ones concern whether there was proper accommodation of well-known confounding effects. In particular, calibration of the instrumentation, and correction for temperature effects, are insufficiently described.
That claim is exaggerated to the point of dishonesty. The only "refereed" journals in which this work appears are those that are published by...Santilli (and his cohorts). That by itself doesn't necessarily invalidate the measurements, but it's a bright red flag. At minimum, it disallows your grandiose claim that it has been "confirmed." Only a crackpot would argue that the measurements have been confirmed.More specifically the measurements establish that in the transition from the zenith to the horizon the original red light disappears and it is shifted towards the infrared band that did not exist at the zenith.
This is Santilli's IsoRedShift, now confirmed and published in various refereed journals.
As far as can be determined, the "Richard Cox" who is the purported author of that paper does not exist. The hypothesis that best fits the available data is that Richard Cox is, in fact, Santilli in disguise. The organization given in the paper as affiliated with "Cox" is a crank organization. We are not fooled by its high-falutin' name. A quick search of the organization's domain name reveals that it is registered to the "Hadronic Press" which, in turn, is revealed to be run by Santilli's wife, Carla. Apparently scientificethics.com lives up to its name the same way that North Korea lives up to being the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.Rayleigh scattering applies for sure the percentage of sunlight which is absorbed by our atmosphere and then scatters in all direction yielding the colors of our atmosphere. This is due to inelastic scattering with a huge loss of energy to air that has nothing to do with IRS. This situation has been well presented here: www.scientificethics.org/Criticisms-Gandzha.pdf
Honest folk don't need to resort to BS tricks as these. Why are you citing this utter bullcrap? Either you are genuinely naive (possible, but unlikely), or you are pushing an agenda.
You are wrong. The measurements on which you base your conclusions are unreliable. There is no discrepancy between the predictions of conventional physics and the spectrum of light observed. I challenge you to support your claims by citing appropriate measurements that were published in real refereed (by other than Santilli and his cronies) journals. If you cannot, you should withdraw your claims as unsupported by other than the claimant.The consequential absence of the expansion of the universe seems obvious to me, but I could be wrong and I will appreciate technical counter criticisms.
I don't believe for a minute that you are being open-minded. I think it is rather likely that you are either Santilli himself, or one of his shills. Note to Santilli and/or his lawyers: Note that I am using words like "I think" and "likely," so don't try to sue me as you have so many others. Grazie.Any technical objection, please let me know as I want to settle this issue in my mind.
Last edited by tk421; February 11th, 2013 at 06:03 PM.
Isn't it? It's like the High Church of crackpots.That is a fascinating website: International Committee on <br>Scientific Ethics and Accountability
I get the impression that you are not totally familiar with the relevant science; is that true? (I am happy to admit that I am not, if that helps)
There is no such conjecture. As far as I know, the only people who place the Earth (stationary) at the center of the universe are an odd group of fundamentalist Christian geocentrists.In this way Santilli proves that the conjecture of the expansion of the universe necessarily implies Earth at the center of the universe
I guess what concerns me is that you don't appear to be terribly familiar with either theory (based on what you have written here) and yet seem convinced one is wrong and the other is right.
That is absolutely wrong. I'm surprised that Santilli would say this; clearly he should know better. I'm aware of several thousand blue-shifted galaxies. The existence of these galaxies would seem to pose rather serious problems for Santilli's IRS theory. As a simple online example, see Distribution of Blue Shifted Galaxies. Yes, it's a blog, but it abstracts information from the NED1 website, which may be considered a primary source.
Nope. Not even close. Since the "therefore" clause is dependent on a demonstrably erroneous supposition, the claim fails.Therefore the redness of the sun at sunset is indeed visual evidence on Earth of redshift of light without relative motion.
Santilli's IRS theory attributes redshift to the effect of the atmosphere. Aside from all of its other problems, IRS suffers a death blow from the fact that the same redshifts are observed by both ground-based telescopes and the Hubble. As the Hubble Telescope is in space, IRS predicts that the HST would observe much smaller redshift than telescopes on the ground. This is not what is observed.
In short, IRS is wrong.
Oh, don't you just hate it when facts get in the way of a personal theory!
Where did I say there are no blue shifted galaxies? Santilli has not presented this evidence, this is something I question and makes me curious about his theories and measurements!That is absolutely wrong. I'm surprised that Santilli would say this; clearly he should know better. I'm aware of several thousand blue-shifted galaxies. The existence of these galaxies would seem to pose rather serious problems for Santilli's IRS theory. As a simple online example, see Distribution of Blue Shifted Galaxies. Yes, it's a blog, but it abstracts information from the NED1 website, which may be considered a primary source.
Blue shifted galaxies stop showing up at a certain distance, within our local group, no? What is the most distant blue shifted galaxy identified? Is it possible the blueshifted galaxies been redshifted after a certain distance per Santilli's IRS measurements?
Ouch.
To be fair, that was my initial interpretation of this statement:
It seemed so obviously wrong (and in conflict with your original question) that I realised it was just confusingly worded.
Some of you questions have already been answered,
Blue shifted galaxies stop showing up at a certain distance, within our local group, no?What is the most distant blue shifted galaxy identified?I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you want to try rephrasing it.Is it possible the blueshifted galaxies been redshifted after a certain distance per Santilli's IRS measurements?
I'm pretty sure that we don't see a redshift of the sun when it is at the zenith for the observer.Santilli's IRS theory attributes redshift to the effect of the atmosphere. Aside from all of its other problems, IRS suffers a death blow from the fact that the same redshifts are observed by both ground-based telescopes and the Hubble. As the Hubble Telescope is in space, IRS predicts that the HST would observe much smaller redshift than telescopes on the ground. This is not what is observed.
In short, IRS is wrong.
Tell me, do they point telescopes at the horizon (where we note a solar redshift) or relatively straight up?
So you are saying that there is enough atmosphere in the way at sunset to have a noticeable effect, but that looking straight up through the atmosphere has zero (or immeasurably small) effect?
If the most distant blueshifted galaxy we have identified is Andromeda, which is 2.5 million light years away, that would be within our local group, no?
The reason I ask is I am hypothesizing that even galaxies which have undergone an IsoBlueShift (IBS) could be shifted back to appearing red, for viewers on Earth, after traveling through enough of a cool intergalactic medium.
Yes. It appears to me that is what Santilli deems an IsoRedShift. Direct light losing energy to a cool medium (IRS) or light gaining energy from a hot medium (IBS).So you are saying that there is enough atmosphere in the way at sunset to have a noticeable effect, but that looking straight up through the atmosphere has zero (or immeasurably small) effect?
Correct. All blue shifted galaxies are within out local group. But not all galaxies in our local group are blue shifted.
Can you explain what would cause this "IsoBlueShift"?The reason I ask is I am hypothesizing that even galaxies which have undergone an IsoBlueShift (IBS) could be shifted back to appearing red, for viewers on Earth, after traveling through enough of a cool intergalactic medium.
Are you saying that relative motion (Doppler effect) is not enough to account for the red/blue shift of galaxies in the local cluster?
So if the ~1,000 km of air at the horizon has an easily measurable effect, shouldn't the ~100km of air at the zenith just have 1/10th of that effect (and therefore still be measurable)?
And what is the definition of "hot" and "cool"? At what temperature is there no net shift?
So what I am struggling with here is that a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the atmosphere (at ground level) has about 1025 molecules per m3 which makes it (I think) about 1025 denser than the intergalactic medium.
Looking directly up through the atmosphere would therefore be equivalent to millions of megaparsecs of space. We see significant red shift at that distance, so why don't we see the same through the atmosphere?
WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE OF EXPANSION, APART FROM REDSHIFTS?
It is as if Santilli thinks the whole "expanding universe" paradigm rests upon redshift. It doesnt.
There is also the abundances of lighter elements in more distant galaxies, predicted for an expanding universe and observed in our universe. If our universe is not expanding, why is there an abundance of lighter elements as we look to further and further distances (where distance is defined using either luminosity, or angular diameter)?
There is also the cosmological time-dilation that goes hand in hand with cosmological redshift, another prediction of an expanding universe that we observe in our universe. If the universe is not expanding, then why do we observe the predicted time-dilations in distant supernovae ("tired light" has been ruled out as an explanation, as there is no mechanism by which the intergalctic medium could "stretch" the wavelength of light without causing scattering which is not seen AND stretch the intervals between pulses of light as seen in quasars - how can the intergalactic medium also stretch the gaps between light emissions?)
Isoredshift is a ludicrous idea, and does not address all the other evidence we have for an expanding universe, so to claim the redenning of the Sun near the horizon disproves universal expansion is a completely vacuous and nonsensical approach.
It isn't even pseudoscience - it is utter trash, and that is where this thread belongs.
Santilli proves no such thing. In an expanding universe, all observers would see redshift increasing with distance in all directions, just like we do, and would consider themselves to be at the centre of their own observable universe (where the observational limit is the time that light has had in which to move). The "inconsitency" is simply a straw man argument therefore - more nonsense from someone who really doesn't know what he is talking about.
Get it straight in your mind, Goldberg Lettuce - Santilli is a complete nut-job and his arguments against the expansion of the universe are just examples of the utter failure of his own understanding of the theory he is trying to ineptly argue against.
Now then, please note that there are some legitimate questions about the Big-Bang theory, and these do manage to get published in relevant and reputable journals. It is just the nutjobs like Santilli who have to publish in fringe journals and try to sue people who correctly dismiss their inept work.
Speedfreak said the galaxies are outside our local group, but I digress.Correct. All blue shifted galaxies are within out local group. But not all galaxies in our local group are blue shifted.
Can you explain what would cause this "IsoBlueShift"?The reason I ask is I am hypothesizing that even galaxies which have undergone an IsoBlueShift (IBS) could be shifted back to appearing red, for viewers on Earth, after traveling through enough of a cool intergalactic medium.
Are you saying that relative motion (Doppler effect) is not enough to account for the red/blue shift of galaxies in the local cluster?
The prediction in ongoing studies, not by Santilli, which is soon to be published by astrophysicists who have studied Santilli's work, is that in certain galaxies, the inner galactic medium is hot, namely over 140F.
In this case, galactic light is blue shifted by the hot medium, it reaches intergalactic media already blueshifted, and it is then exposed to the IsoRedShift (IRS) caused by very cold hydrogen gases throughout the universe.
According to the above view, galactic light then experiences both IBS within the galaxy and IRS in the intergalactic space.
Therefore, for moderate distances from Earth, the IsoBlueShift clearly dominates over the IRS due to the extremely rarefied nature of the Hydrogen gas. In this case, galactic light is blueshifted without any relative motion at all. However, said astrophysicists are trying to evaluate a distance of galaxies after which intergalactic IRS dominates over possible internal IBS.
This yields the prediction that no blueshifted galactic light should be received by Earth after a certain unknown large distance.
This is my understanding. Again, serious science requires an investigation of all possible contributions. For instance, Santilli has formulated his IsoShift law by keeping indeed a conventional doppler contribution. Therefore, we can not exclude that blueshifted galaxies can indeed move toward us.
The only point is that the possible motion of galaxies appears to be very moderate and therefore their contribution for their blueshift is expected to be minimal.
This point has indeed been established by Santilli by proving the identity of the redshift at sunset and sunrise. Thus confirming that the conventional Doppler effect due to the rotation of the Earth has an insignificant contribution which everyone can measure on the order of 10^-6 contribution.
In fact Santilli has formulated his IsoShift law for sunset and sunrise with the inclusion of the doppler effect.
In particular, at sunset, the observer moves away from the sun, while at sunrise towards the sun - if I remember correctly at 1200 kmh, yet Santilli's measurements prove that the contributions from the Doppler effect is negligible.
Thank you for these serious questions.So if the ~1,000 km of air at the horizon has an easily measurable effect, shouldn't the ~100km of air at the zenith just have 1/10th of that effect (and therefore still be measurable)?
And what is the definition of "hot" and "cool"? At what temperature is there no net shift?
To my understanding they are all answered in Santilli's paper or the papers of the independent experimentalists.
The propagtion of light within any gaseous medium seems to cause an IsoShift. If the gas is below 70F, Santilli has measured the IRS in blue laser light. If the tempeature if between 70F and 140F, Santilli has measured NoIsoShift. Finally, if the gas is over 140F Santilli has measured an IBS.
The numerical value of both IRS and IBS depends on the distance traveled, the pressure of the gas, it's chemical composition, and many other factors. For the IRS of sunlight in our atmosphere, Santilli's measurements show an initiation of measurable IRS at around 90 degree elevation that appears to increase to me in a non-linear way with an increase of the distance - although this point is not covered in the existing literature.
Back to your main question for the light propagating through an atmosphere at the zenith, to my understanding, there is indeed an IRS between sunlight at the origin of ouand sunlight at sea level but this is expected to be a small fraction of a nanometer and above all nobody could care less to measure it. My personal view is that such an IRS between sunlight received by Hubble and sunlight detected by us for the sun at the zenith is so small it can be ignored.
Get out of this thread with your insults.Santilli proves no such thing. In an expanding universe, all observers would see redshift increasing with distance in all directions, just like we do, and would consider themselves to be at the centre of their own observable universe (where the observational limit is the time that light has had in which to move). The "inconsitency" is simply a straw man argument therefore - more nonsense from someone who really doesn't know what he is talking about.
Get it straight in your mind, Goldberg Lettuce - Santilli is a complete nut-job and his arguments against the expansion of the universe are just examples of the utter failure of his own understanding of the theory he is trying to ineptly argue against.
Now then, please note that there are some legitimate questions about the Big-Bang theory, and these do manage to get published in relevant and reputable journals. It is just the nutjobs like Santilli who have to publish in fringe journals and try to sue people who correctly dismiss their inept work.
It makes sense to me. Much more than the expanding universe theory that says galaxies are receding faster than the speed of light.
Why don't we see any blueshifted galaxies outside of our local group?
Leave my thread alone if you don't want to counter the paper with a technical argument.
The question was: "Where does the demarcation between redshifted and blueshifted galaxies noticeably occur relative to the Earth?"
The answer was: outside our local group. In other words, within the local group there are both red and blue (and no) shifted galaxies depending on relative motion. Outside our local group, there are only red-shifted galaxies, depending on distance.
Can you tell us how you know so much about this ongoing research which is not yet published? And who is doing this research?The prediction in ongoing studies, not by Santilli, which is soon to be published by astrophysicists who have studied Santilli's work, is that in certain galaxies, the inner galactic medium is hot, namely over 140F.
Also, if there is a significant blue shift due to the innner galactic medium, wouldn't you expect this to vary for the stars at the center of the galaxy and those at the edge (where the light travels through much less of the medium)?
What about the time dilation effects of distant galaxies? This corresponds exactly to the observed red-shift. How does santilli account for that?This yields the prediction that no blueshifted galactic light should be received by Earth after a certain unknown large distance.
Because they are all receding. What is wrong with that?
And what is the problem with that?Much more than the expanding universe theory that says galaxies are receding faster than the speed of light.
To my knowledge, astrophysics has not yet reached the point of distinuishing light from different stars of a far away galaxy, but I could be wrong as I am not an astrophysicist. The cosmological redshift is a single beam of light from a far away galaxy representing the collection of all stars.The question was: "Where does the demarcation between redshifted and blueshifted galaxies noticeably occur relative to the Earth?"
The answer was: outside our local group. In other words, within the local group there are both red and blue (and no) shifted galaxies depending on relative motion. Outside our local group, there are only red-shifted galaxies, depending on distance.
Can you tell us how you know so much about this ongoing research which is not yet published? And who is doing this research?The prediction in ongoing studies, not by Santilli, which is soon to be published by astrophysicists who have studied Santilli's work, is that in certain galaxies, the inner galactic medium is hot, namely over 140F.
Also, if there is a significant blue shift due to the innner galactic medium, wouldn't you expect this to vary for the stars at the center of the galaxy and those at the edge (where the light travels through much less of the medium)?
I'm afraid that time dilation is a pure conjecture studiously not verifiable on earth. In any case, speaking of time dilation for the measurements of redshift of light propagating within a physical medium has no sense whatsoever because the axiom of special relativity do not apply within a physical media.
Also, what about the lack of time dilation effects of quasars?
Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers
I don't know why you say that. It can be, and has been, measured.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.In any case, speaking of time dilation for the measurements of redshift of light propagating within a physical medium has no sense whatsoever because the axiom of special relativity do not apply within a physical media.
You can't have it both ways! You said it can't be measured.Also, what about the lack of time dilation effects of quasars?
OK. There may be something surprising about measurements of quasars. That doesn't change the other measurements.
That is because you are an idiot.
We don't see any blueshifted galaxies outside of our local cluster because all the other clusters (which are not gravitationally bound to ours) are receding from here with the expansion of the universe, and thus show a redshift. Durrr. Like, that's the reason we think the universe is expanding in the first place. Nice argument there.
The OBSERVED time-dilations in Type Ia Supernovae. The OBSERVED abundances of lighter elements in the earlier universe. The OBSERVED higher temperature of the CMB heating gaseous clouds in earlier times, showing that the universe used to be hotter (and thus denser). The existence of the CMB itself and the fact it has the most perfect black-body spectrum seen in nature.
All these are predictions for an expanding universe, that have no rational explanation if the universe is not expanding. I could continue, if I could be bothered.
Actually, I want to apologise for my insulting tone here. I am taking a break. Sorry Goldberg Lettuce, I should not have called you an idiot. Just try to take a balanced view on the subject - look at all the evidence for an expanding universe and then compare it with Santilli's incredibly weak argument against it.
Last edited by SpeedFreek; February 12th, 2013 at 02:27 PM.
It's obvious that you are trying to drag this thread into insults. You are clearly a supporter of organized interests on Einstein as established by your very use of Einstein gravitation for the large scale structure of the Universe.That is because you are an idiot.
We don't see any blueshifted galaxies outside of our local cluster because all the other clusters (which are not gravitationally bound to ours) are receding from here with the expansion of the universe, and thus show a redshift. Durrr. Like, that's the reason we think the universe is expanding in the first place. Nice argument there.
The OBSERVED time-dilations in Type Ia Supernovae. The OBSERVED abundances of lighter elements in the earlier universe. The OBSERVED higher temperature of the CMB heating gaseous clouds in earlier times, showing that the universe used to be hotter (and thus denser). The existence of the CMB itself and the fact it has the most perfect black-body spectrum seen in nature.
All these are predictions for an expanding universe, that have no rational explanation if the universe is not expanding. I could continue, if I could be bothered.
In fact, high school students know that the gravitational force between galaxies is absolutely null and therefore any use of Einstein gravitation for the large scale of the universe is a scientific scam for personal interests.
Of course the universe could have been much hotter in the past, but this positively does not imply the expansion of the universe.
All your other claims are entirely political and they are only far fetched conjectures.
Such as the observation of time dilation in a far away galactic system. Similarly all the other data are your pure personal beliefs, because as an example, the use of Santilli IRS would imply a drastic revision in their numerical value.
Above all, your political posturing, let alone your insults, crosses all scientific boundaries because you keep intentionally ignoring the inconsistencies of the acceleration of the expansion implying different relative speeds for different observers. You ignore the need for trillions of galaxies at the edge of the universe to travel faster than the speed of light "My God" You ignore the catastrophic inconsistencies of the far fetched conjectures of the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, all intended to maintain Einstein's theories throughout the universe but studiously conceived as not being verifiable on Earth.
It is known that absorption is not the origin of the redness of the sun at sunset because otherwise the sun at the zenith would be red as well.
Extended particles or objects propagating within a physical media experiences, such as a missile in atmosphere, are well known to experience non-linear, non-local, and non-potential resistive forces outside any hope of representation via special relativity.I don't know why you say that. It can be, and has been, measured.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.In any case, speaking of time dilation for the measurements of redshift of light propagating within a physical medium has no sense whatsoever because the axiom of special relativity do not apply within a physical media.
You can't have it both ways! You said it can't be measured.Also, what about the lack of time dilation effects of quasars?
OK. There may be something surprising about measurements of quasars. That doesn't change the other measurements.
It has been disproven that the reduction of this microscopic system to ideal point like particles all nicely experiencing only Einstein forces has been disproven in refereed journals by the No Interaction Theorems which any graduate students can verify.
The politics by organized Einstein interests, in the propagation of ELM waves within physical medium is simply beyond belief. In fact, said interests reduce the ELM waves to photons and claim that Einstein is recovered at the level of photons propagating vacuum.
In reality, reduction to photons can only be claimed for the "absorption" for which Einstein got the Nobel prize.
By contrast, reduction to photons for the "propagation" without absorption prohibits numerical representation of visual evidence such as;
There is the impossibility of representing the angle of refraction of light in water because photons will scatter in all directions at the time of impact with the water's surface; There is the known impossibility of representing the reduction of the speed of light by about one third; the propagation of light in water along a straight beam would require the jillions of photons crossing jillions of atoms and nuclei in a straight line without scattering; In water we have the brutal violation of the relativistic sum of speed; We additionally have physical particles, such as electrons traveling faster than the local speed of light as a necessary condition to generate cherenkov light, thus in brutal violation of Einstein's causality law; etc., etc.
Oops, you've been sussed guys.
Time to activate the Third Platoon Illuminati Lizardoids to shut this guy up.
It sure didn't take too long for GL to flip out completely. He's in full-on crackpot mode now. Yowza!Oops, you've been sussed guys.
Time to activate the Third Platoon Illuminati Lizardoids to shut this guy up.
And since I haven't gotten this month's check from the Einstein Brotherhood Protection Agency (motto: "Do as we say and no one gets hurt"), I'll let GL carry on for a little while.
You have demonstrated that you know very little about either the theory you are supporting or mainstream theories. You appear now to be trying to prove that you are insane. Please don't drag paranoid conspiracy theories into this. This is intended to be a science forum.
If they know that, then they are clearly fatally ignorant of even Newtonian physics. Is this what you were taught at school?In fact, high school students know that the gravitational force between galaxies is absolutely null
Of course they are not personal beliefs. They are data that have been reproduced over nearly a century by a huge number of scientists all around the world.Such as the observation of time dilation in a far away galactic system. Similarly all the other data are your pure personal beliefs,
Please stop dragging ridiculous political and personal claims into this. This is supposed to be a SCIENCE forum.Above all, your political posturing
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you clarify it?you keep intentionally ignoring the inconsistencies of the acceleration of the expansion implying different relative speeds for different observers.
Could you explain why you think that is a problem? The only reason I can think of is a misunderstanding of relativity. As you reject relativity you cannot object to things travelling faster than light. (Not that it contradicts relativity anyway; an expanding universe was one of the predictions of GR.)You ignore the need for trillions of galaxies at the edge of the universe to travel faster than the speed of light
Please state one inconsistency and provide peer reviewed experimental evidence that contradicts relativity.You ignore the catastrophic inconsistencies of the far fetched conjectures of the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, all intended to maintain Einstein's theories throughout the universe but studiously conceived as not being verifiable on Earth.
Otherwise please stop the hysterical and baseless accusations.
Exactly the same argument applies to your red-shift claim, as I noted above.It is known that absorption is not the origin of the redness of the sun at sunset because otherwise the sun at the zenith would be red as well.
That doesn't seem to make miuch sense. Could you please provide an explicit reference to a peer-reviewed experimental or theoretical result that shows a contradiction in GR.Extended particles or objects propagating within a physical media experiences, such as a missile in atmosphere, are well known to experience non-linear, non-local, and non-potential resistive forces outside any hope of representation via special relativity.
It has been disproven that the reduction of this microscopic system to ideal point like particles all nicely experiencing only Einstein forces has been disproven in refereed journals by the No Interaction Theorems which any graduate students can verify.
Please stop dragging this inane references to politics into it. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SCIENCE FORUM. You are supposed to be presenting a scientific argument, not emotional and meaningless rants. What the hell is wrong with you?The politics by organized Einstein interests
What is an ELM wave? And what does it have to do with relativity or redshift?in the propagation of ELM waves within physical medium is simply beyond belief.
Calm down, man. You are making no sense.In fact, said interests reduce the ELM waves to photons and claim that Einstein is recovered at the level of photons propagating vacuum.
Is this something about QED? If so perhaps you could provide a little more detail, you don't make much sense at the moment.There is the impossibility of representing the angle of refraction of light in water because photons will scatter in all directions at the time of impact with the water's surface ...
Ok, now it's time for the trash. This head of lettuce is beginning to turn into brown ooze.You are clearly a supporter of organized interests on Einstein
ROLF! I'm laughing too hard to move this to trash :-)
I think ELM waves are ELectroMagnetic waves.
I am not surprised that Cabbage is using a non-standard abbreviation.
This is FALSE and SLANDEROUS. Santilli considers Einstein's Special Relativity in vacuum the greatest theory of the whole science. He merely claim that Einstein stated the full validity of Special Relativity Theory only in vacuum and for pure point-like particles, i.e. under well precise constrains. Under such constrains, Santilli has not doubts on the full validity of Special Relativity Theory, which is the most well tested theory in the history of science. Santilli claims that, indeed, Special Relativity Theory must be modified within the material mediums, i.e. outside the constraints that were released by Einstein. In that sense, Santilli honours Einstein's name differently from people who abuse such a name by claiming that Special Relativity Theory is valid under constrains which are different from the ones that were released by Einstein.
Oh, of course. Why didn't I think of that ...
Yes, I'm more used to LOGI (eLectrOmaGnetIc) waves.I am not surprised that Cabbage is using a non-standard abbreviation.
Please provide evidence that relativity does not apply to massive objects (say, GPS satellites, for example) and within the atmosphere (oh, I don't know, perhaps GPS receivers, all the many experiments done on Earth that confirm relativity, and so on).
Special Relativity works very well within the atmosphere because the refractive index of air is near the unity. Hence, Special Relativity remains an excellent approximation, but Santilli Iso-Relativity, which is a generalization of Special Relativity within the material mediums, works in a better way. Nobody is claiming that Special Relativity is wrong!Please provide evidence that relativity does not apply to massive objects (say, GPS satellites, for example) and within the atmosphere (oh, I don't know, perhaps GPS receivers, all the many experiments done on Earth that confirm relativity, and so on).
But I thought you said it only applied "pure point-like particles" under certain constraints. Why does it apply to non-point-like objects. And what constraints do you need to think are required?
He is claiming that general relativity is wrong. Which makes him an anti-relativity crank.
Einstein constrained Special Relativity in vacuum and for pure point-like particles. Where is he claiming that general relativity is wrong? General relativity does not automatically imply that the Universe is expanding.But I thought you said it only applied "pure point-like particles" under certain constraints. Why does it apply to non-point-like objects. And what constraints do you need to think are required?
He is claiming that general relativity is wrong. Which makes him an anti-relativity crank.
The recent works on the lack of universe expansion have been published in the peer reviewed journal Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, see for example
Experimental confirmation of the IsoRedShift at sunset and sunrise, with consequential absence of the universe expansion and related conjectures - Journal of Computational Methods in Science and Engineering - Volume 12, Number 3 / 2012 - IOS Press
Really? Can you provide a reference to that?
One of the (many) reasons the big bang theory was accepted is that it confirmed this prediction of general relativity. I'm sure you are familiar with the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric.General relativity does not automatically imply that the Universe is expanding.
Standard cosmological conjectures have reached a self-destructive stage due to:
1) Excessively far fetched implications (e.g., entire galaxies at the edge of the known universe are proffered to traveling faster than the speed of light in vacuum);
2) Gross internal inconsistencies (e.g., per very definition of explosions, the big bang would require the universe to be empty for about 13.7 billion light years from Earth, with galaxies then decreasing in speed, in dramatic disagreement with astrophysical evidence, while the background radiation can be easily proved to have been absorbed by galaxies and intergalactic media billions of years ago);
3) Large failures in representing the intended conditions (e.g., dark matter and dark energy cannot possibly provide any measurable effect when equally distributed, and they demand the contraction of galaxies and of the universe, respectively, according to Einstein gravitation)
Interesting choice. A non-peer reviewed journal in an irrelevant subject. I wonder why....
By the way "mordecai" are you a sock puppet of the lettuce one, or do you just make a habit of following him around forums and taking over when he has embarrassed himself with one of his little paranoid hissy fits?
Can you explain why you think there is a problem with that?
The big bang was not an explosion which makes the rest of that point somewhat irrelevant (even if it were accurate).2) Gross internal inconsistencies (e.g., per very definition of explosions, the big bang would require the universe to be empty for about 13.7 billion light years from Earth, with galaxies then decreasing in speed, in dramatic disagreement with astrophysical evidence, while the background radiation can be easily proved to have been absorbed by galaxies and intergalactic media billions of years ago);
Dark matter is not evenly distributed, so that is also irrelevant.3) Large failures in representing the intended conditions (e.g., dark matter and dark energy cannot possibly provide any measurable effect when equally distributed, and they demand the contraction of galaxies and of the universe, respectively, according to Einstein gravitation)
Can you explain why they would "demand the contraction of galaxies and of the universe"?
It sounds like you know even less basic physics than lettuce.
The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker is not the sole model of universe. For example, give a look to this one which won the 5th Prize at the 2008 Gravity Research Foundation competition:Really? Can you provide a reference to that?
One of the (many) reasons the big bang theory was accepted is that it confirmed this prediction of general relativity. I'm sure you are familiar with the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric.General relativity does not automatically imply that the Universe is expanding.
The return of a static universe and the end of cosmology - Springer
There are also other models without expansion that do not contradict general relativity. It is well known that, historically, the same Einstein did not believe in the universe expansion.
I assume you just found that with a keyword search. I don't think it says what you think it does.
There may be. Care to provide some references?There are also other models without expansion that do not contradict general relativity.
How is that relevant? Apart from being wrong.It is well known that, historically, the same Einstein did not believe in the universe expansion.
Ahem:
Really? Can you provide a reference to that?
Incorrect - this argument is a Straw Man. You do not understand how General Relativity describes universal expansion. No galaxy is travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, so your argument is void. The universe expands such that galaxies only 1/3 of the distance to the edge of the observable universe would have had to have receded at the speed of light to get there IF they were moving through the universe, but they were not moving through the universe - the universe expands around them.Standard cosmological conjectures have reached a self-destructive stage due to:
1) Excessively far fetched implications (e.g., entire galaxies at the edge of the known universe are proffered to traveling faster than the speed of light in vacuum);
Yet again you show a TOTAL IGNORANCE of what the theory is actually saying. The Big-Bang is NOT an explosion and never has been described as one, except by people who don't understand what they are talking about.
And no galaxy has as perfect a black-body spectrum as the CMB, therefore the CMB was not absorbed by galaxies.
Once again you show your ignorance. Dark matter is not thought to be evenly distributed, and dark energy CAN provide a measurable effect according to Einstein - you need to research the COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT that Einstein proposed in order to understand how wrong you are here.
So...
WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE OF EXPANSION, APART FROM REDSHIFTS?
You never addressed this.
The famous model by Narlikar is an example:
[astro-ph/0211036] Inhomogeneities in the Microwave Background Radiation interpreted within the framework of the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology
Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models
Ruled out - the arguments in the above article have, as of yet, not been rebutted.
Unfortunately, like all such models it is unable to explain all the evidence. There is a reason that the big bang theory is the currently accepted model (and it is not because of some ludicrous political conspiracy).
5th Prize at Babson?? That's like bragging about placing 3rd in a two-person race with no athletic competitors. FIrst place wins "up to $5000," says their website. 5th place must get a handsome certificate.
As my 5-year-old niece would say with a dismissive eye-roll, "Puh-leeze!."
I hope we are not going to get a series of "different" posters turning up and making a few ignorant claims about cosmology before disappearing again ...
Given the tactics of Santilli and his cohorts over the years, it would be entirely consistent to see sock-puppetry run amok here. The give-away is a rapid descent into out-and-out crackpot behavior, after a brief feigning of politeness.
February 14th, 2013, 04:31 PM
Why do objects that are moving towards the observer show a blueshift (as evidenced in laboratory experiments)? Why is Andromeda blueshifted? Could it be because it is moving towards us, due to the mutual gravitational attraction between the Milky-Way and its closest neighbour?
Have you never heard of the ideal gas law?
No, they are logical conclusions, whereas all your own objections are entirely due to the politics of stupid.
We observe that supernovae of a certain type always "burn hot" for a certain length of time, at a certain distance. The further away they are, the longer they "burn hot" for. We can use them as "standard candles" and they show time-dilation in accordance with the predictions for an expanding universe. Santilli has to explain these same time-dilations.
All your arguments seem to wilfully ignore the cosmological principle and thus you erroneously attribute preferred frames where none are implied.
You ignore the fact that nothing travels faster than light in Big-Bang theory, as the expansion of the universe has nothing to do with anything doing any travelling. Everything is at rest in relation to the expansion. You do not understand the theory you are arguing against.
We go where our observations take us. There is no agenda here. Why would anything to do with the universe at large be verifiable on Earth? You even said this yourself in your own inept way - "any use of Einstein gravitation for the large scale of the universe is a scientific scam" so if that is your argument, that we cannot use Einsteins rules for the universe at large, then why complain when we say we cannot verify these things from Earth? You seem to be arguing both ways here.
That is absolute rubbish! Have you never noticed the difference in the colour of the sky overhead when compared to just above the horizon too? This is all easily explained by scattering - you are looking though very different amounts of atmosphere when comparing the zenith to the horizon.
Hmmm.. Pound-Rebka experiment. Hafele Keating experiment. GPS satellites. All experiments in particle accelerators. We have many experimental confirmations of time-dilation. You just seem to be in some sort of denial of the overwhelming evidence that supports Einsteins theories.
Now you have descended into crazy talk. We have experimental proof for all of this.
Crazyness!! Look at the impossible angle below caused by all those photons scattering in all directions as you claim!
You claim the image of the pencil above is obviously refracted at an impossible angle! Those photons did not all change direction in the same way, they all went in different directions! You are talking out of your butt and deserve to be treated with complete derision as you are obviously unhinged and a complete fruit loop!
I think your brain just went *ping* and something broke. You must believe that the photo above, an experiment which everyone can reproduce themselves in their own kitchen, is a fake. Take your nutjobbery elsewhere.
I insult you because you totally deserve it.
I can only think of Monty Python: "I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction."I think your brain just went *ping* and something broke. You must believe that the photo above, an experiment which everyone can reproduce themselves in their own kitchen, is a fake. Take your nutjobbery elsewhere.
I insult you because you totally deserve it.
More seriously, GL's appalling ignorance of physics is an interesting accompaniment to his certitude (Dunning-Kruger: Right again!). He seems unaware that Cherenkov/Cerenkov radiation is never produced in a vacuum. It is only observed in media possessing a propagation velocity below c. It is a well-understood phenomenon whose existence is entirely explained within the framework of existing physics. There is no violation -- "brutal" or otherwise -- of causality.
i don't know if this is a good example for time dilation/length contraction but, stand on a sidewalk and let the fastest possible car drive pass you on full speed and then at 10mph.
you would think that the SAME car on full speed is shorter than at 10mph.
or sit in it and drive down a road with buildings, the buildings seem slimer at full speed than at 10mph.
The final conjecture of dark energy constitutes the climax of scientific politics in astrophysics and cosmology, with consequential unavoidable problems pertaining to scientific ethics and accountability. Again and again, as it was the case for all preceding conjectures, the yet additional extremely far reaching conjecture of the universe being filled by with a mysterious energy for about 95% of the total energy, was voiced for the unspoken intent of maintaining Einsteinian doctrines in their central pillar, the Energy equivalence law E = m c^2, not for the conditions intended by Einstein and experimentally verified (point particles in vacuum for which c is certainly the maximal causal speed), but for the interior of stars, quasars and black holes for which said law is a pure personal belief at this time.
A central pillar of Einstein gravitation is that energy causes gravitational attraction. Consequently, under the presence of 95% dark energy, the universe should contract and positively "not" expand. Again, as a result of its organized interests on Einstein, the conjecture of dark energy did indeed succeed in achieving the unspoken intent of maintaining the validity of Eisteinian doctrines within the hyper-dense media inside stars, quasars and black holes, but the conjecture failed to represent the data for which it was intended, and it is in dramatic disagreement with Einstein gravitation
So you are a sock puppet. Thanks for confirm it.
Please stop making ridiculously paranoid claims about politics. As you said under the krapstein cabbage pseudonym, this should be about science.
It is clear you are totally ignorant of science and presumably that is why you keep trying to invent excuses for your Messiah's failure to get his idiotic ideas accepted.
Last edited by Strange; February 15th, 2013 at 07:17 AM. Reason: spelling
That display a stunning level of ignorance of the theory you are attempting to attack. The whole point of "dark energy" is that it is intended to explain the apparently accelerating expansion. Therefore it must have a repulsive / negative pressure effect.
But note that "dark energy" is just a placeholder name. We don't know what it actually is but it can be described within GR as a negative energy.
Stop being a dick. There are no "organised interests". Unless you count the Masonic-Illuminati Alien Lizard Race who run the planet (yes, that is how sane you sound).Again, as a result of its organized interests on Einstein
So, you did not bother to do any research into Einstein's cosmological constant then. Therefore, you patently do not know what the hell you are talking about.
I do agree with your statement that dark energy is simply a "placeholder" name.
I feel it is important to stress this to answer those, out of the box "thinkers", who appear to believe that because we don't know what dark energy actually is the concept is yet another example of mainstream science getting things wrong.
Your squalid insults and your ridiculous claims only show that you are corrupted by the scientific crime of organized interests on Einstein. Negative energy does not exist within the real world. The problems of scientific ethics and accountability are identified in all their implications by noting that the far reaching conjecture of dark energy does not represent the dynamics of the universe, trivially, because when uniformly distributed cannot possibly provide any measurable effect on individual galaxies ("show me the equations published in a refereed journal"...).
1. How do you know that?
2. Did I say that it was negative energy?
Please leave your paranoid delusions out of this, mordecai/lettuce/igofex/worriedlad/jdizz.... the scientific crime of organized interests ... problems of scientific ethics and accountability ...
How many other monikers do you use?
How much time do you spendmasturbating overdiscussing Santilli with yourself on forums? That is beyond weird.
Your knowledge of fundamental physics is null. Hence, you slander and insult people who reveal your insane illness. You are a despicable corrupted person. There have to be1. How do you know that?
2. Did I say that it was negative energy?
Please leave your paranoid delusions out of this, mordecai/lettuce/igofex/worriedlad/jdizz.... the scientific crime of organized interests ... problems of scientific ethics and accountability ...
How many other monikers do you use?
How much time do you spendmasturbating overdiscussing Santilli with yourself on forums? That is beyond weird.
somebodies who stoops the disrupting political manipulations by corrupted people like you in favour organized interests on Einstein and leave a mark for posterity. Myself and Prof. Santilli are those scientists.
We seem to be infested with crank sock-puppets.
Isn't it time this was moved to the trash?
It is better to be infested with crank sock-puppets instead of to be infested with scientific gangsters like you
So, no answers to the questions?<immature rant deleted>1. How do you know that?
2. Did I say that it was negative energy?
Why is it you are only able to make half a dozen postings under each pseudonym before having an emotional meltdown? It is like dealing with a 14 year old.
Mordecai
The final conjecture of dark energy constitutes the climax of scientific politics in astrophysics and cosmology, with consequential unavoidable problems pertaining to scientific ethics and accountability.Your squalid insults and your ridiculous claims only show that you are corrupted by the scientific crime of organized interestsAccusations of "corruption" and "crime" are way, way out of order.There have to be somebodies who stoops the disrupting political manipulations by corrupted people like you in favour organized interests on Einstein and leave a mark for posterity. Myself and Prof. Santilli are those scientists.
As for you being a scientist of any standing, let alone one to overturn the whole discipline of astronomy or physics or cosmology .... .... citations very much needed.
You're now on notice.
Any further such claims that others are dishonestly organising or misrepresenting scientific matters will result in a permanent ban.
I hope I've made myself clear.
This is the same group of fanatic Santilli disciples as over on the other Ruggero Santilli thread, which was abandoned by them once their total ignorance of even basic relativistic physics became apparent. The story is the same here, as it is on a bunch of other science forums, like Cosmoquest. The agenda pushed is always a political one, which is something that Santilli is well known for.
I can find all of this only sad, because actually Santilli did start off as a brilliant and promising physicist, but than sadly drifted off into pseudoscience and crackpottery ( to put it mildly ). He did in his early years have some really good mainstream publications to his credit, and a glance through them confirms that he also a very good mathematician. I think his drifting off into woo is a big loss to the physics community; nowadays all that is left of him is an angry old man with a very questionable political agenda. Petty, and it serves as a warning to all scientists to keep their wits together, and retain the ability to distinguish between reality and fairy tales, which is something that Santilli has clearly lost somewhere along the way...
I always thought that sock puppetry is not allowed under forum rules. Why are accounts like "Mordecai" allowed to remain active ?
I chose my nickname "WorriedLad" because I am worried for my people. I am a member of the group piling up in this forum an others that trashes out evidence, twists data and manipulate facts for the clear aim of maintaining scientific power by preserving old surpassed physical laws. But I am worried because my brothers do not understand that in reality they multiply hatred against us and justify condemnations because you do not treat measurements with Latrina talks without first disproving them experimentally, or accuse Newton of being a crackpot and expect that that's fine because we do it. YES, attacking Santilli as a crackpot for the use of elm "waves" when "propagating" (rather than being "absorbed" according to Einstein) within transparent media and using the speed C = c/n squarely implies attacking Newton as a crackpot because Santilli did not discover refraction. Newton did. Presenting pictures ad hoc selected not showing refraction and dreaming of maintaining scientific power and credibility isolely shows mental aberration with no c redibility because it implies that Newton's prism does not exist. This type of Latrina science is only acceptyed by SOME member of the pile. I am a member of the piling up who feels shame for this Latrina science for my dignity. I must recall to my fanatic brothers that our people suffered a lot in the past for coordinated conduct essentially the same as that in this forum (exploitation of society, systematic discrimination of outsiders, dishonest conduct etc.) all things that eventually turned out 1000% against us, as so easily predictable because outsiders are not that stupid as we appear to expect, and that's the reason I am worried. WorriedLad
Do you have anything relevant to contribute? You know, what with this being a science forum, not a place for immature rants.
Any evidence? Theory? Data? Math?
I am worried that science cannot move forwards whilst deluded fools continue to deny what we ALREADY KNOW, and continually rehash old arguments that have already shown to be false. Fools, just because YOU don't understand the established science (which is completely obvious, from what you write) doesn't mean the rest of us don't understand it. We do. You are wrong, and have been shown to be wrong, but simply ignore any argument against your delusions. You really should have to pay for air.
All these crackpots are anti-science nutters, determined to troll their way into perpetuating ignorance all round, and if I had my way we would sterilize them to stop the propagation of stupid.
They do not understand the arguments against their little ideas, so they dismiss them. They simply do not have the capacity to understand that they do not understand. What are the rest of us to do? I for one cannot be bothered to explain it all out, over and over again, only for it to be ignored. The redness of the Sun at the horizon, and the blueness of the sky in general, are both explained by the same scattering process, as any high school science student knows.
Go away and find some other place to try to perpetuate your stupidity. I will not waste the braincells in addressing your stupidity any longer. All I have for you is derision, you stupid fools.
The physical laws in the universe do not care how stupid you are, and your propagation of stupid will not affect them in the least. I mean, in the last nutters post he shows that he doesn't even understand what a physical law is! A physical law is an observed relationship, it is not the theory that explains that relationship. Go away, and take your stupid with you.
Last edited by SpeedFreek; February 16th, 2013 at 10:47 AM.
Mordecai and his sockpuppet have gotten a little bit too obnoxious and have been banned.
| « More debunking on the way... | What is wrong with the Relativity of Simultaneity? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
18Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
