0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/03/2019 07:32:15Grote Reber the maker of the first radio telescope reckons that the big bang is rubbish.ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE UNIVERSESource: http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/G_Reber.html GROTE REBER Honorary Research Follow CSIRO, Hobart https://bazaarmodel.net/Onderwerpen/Endless-Boundless-Stable-Universe/So your argument is that because the maker of the first radio telescope reckons the big bang is rubbish it must be true? When his view is a minority view - this is what is known as confirmation bias. It also smacks of 'well he is a scientist (who has the same beliefs as me) so he must be right'. Rupert Sheldrake 'was' a biochemist at Cambridge University. He now believes in morphic resonance and all sorts of paranormal phenomena. Would you favour his views because he is a 'scientist'. How about the Tunisian PhD student who submitted a thesis proposing that the earth is flat. Do you subscribe to his views?
Grote Reber the maker of the first radio telescope reckons that the big bang is rubbish.ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE UNIVERSESource: http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/G_Reber.html GROTE REBER Honorary Research Follow CSIRO, Hobart https://bazaarmodel.net/Onderwerpen/Endless-Boundless-Stable-Universe/
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/03/2019 07:32:15Grote Reber the maker of the first radio telescope reckons that the big bang is rubbish.How very embarrassing for him.We have known that this idea Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/03/2019 07:32:15ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE UNIVERSEis wrong for centurieshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradoxWhy do you keep citing people who say stuff that's clearly wrong?
Grote Reber the maker of the first radio telescope reckons that the big bang is rubbish.
ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE UNIVERSE
Quote from: The Spoon on 19/03/2019 14:04:09Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/03/2019 07:32:15Grote Reber the maker of the first radio telescope reckons that the big bang is rubbish.ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE UNIVERSESource: http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/G_Reber.html GROTE REBER Honorary Research Follow CSIRO, Hobart https://bazaarmodel.net/Onderwerpen/Endless-Boundless-Stable-Universe/So your argument is that because the maker of the first radio telescope reckons the big bang is rubbish it must be true? When his view is a minority view - this is what is known as confirmation bias. It also smacks of 'well he is a scientist (who has the same beliefs as me) so he must be right'. Rupert Sheldrake 'was' a biochemist at Cambridge University. He now believes in morphic resonance and all sorts of paranormal phenomena. Would you favour his views because he is a 'scientist'. How about the Tunisian PhD student who submitted a thesis proposing that the earth is flat. Do you subscribe to his views?Albert Einstein co-wrote a paper that the speed of light in vacuum is a constant & then a paper that bending of light in an accelerating chest is equivalent to bending due to gravity & now u adore him despite common sense.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/03/2019 20:40:12Quote from: The Spoon on 19/03/2019 14:04:09Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/03/2019 07:32:15Grote Reber the maker of the first radio telescope reckons that the big bang is rubbish.ENDLESS, BOUNDLESS, STABLE UNIVERSESource: http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/G_Reber.html GROTE REBER Honorary Research Follow CSIRO, Hobart https://bazaarmodel.net/Onderwerpen/Endless-Boundless-Stable-Universe/So your argument is that because the maker of the first radio telescope reckons the big bang is rubbish it must be true? When his view is a minority view - this is what is known as confirmation bias. It also smacks of 'well he is a scientist (who has the same beliefs as me) so he must be right'. Rupert Sheldrake 'was' a biochemist at Cambridge University. He now believes in morphic resonance and all sorts of paranormal phenomena. Would you favour his views because he is a 'scientist'. How about the Tunisian PhD student who submitted a thesis proposing that the earth is flat. Do you subscribe to his views?Albert Einstein co-wrote a paper that the speed of light in vacuum is a constant & then a paper that bending of light in an accelerating chest is equivalent to bending due to gravity & now u adore him despite common sense.A good old common sense. The kind that makes people believe the earth is flat because that is how it looks from ground level you mean?
Olber's Paradox does not exist, because (very massive) black holes eventually annihilate all free photons & all confined photons
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/03/2019 21:24:19Olber's Paradox does not exist, because (very massive) black holes eventually annihilate all free photons & all confined photonsNo, that won't do.Black holes glow.Even if they didn't, if they absorb all the photons then they also absorb all the matter.If all the matter ends up in black holes then the universe as we know it, isn't stable and, also, if it had existed forever as postulated, it would already have fallen into the holes. We wouldn't be here. You are plainly wrong.
There is no need for a finite universe, no need for a big bang.
I have shown that, based on the thortX for bending in an accelerating chest, the bending near the Sun would be 0.13 arcsec at Earth's orbit & 00 arcsec at infinity. Based on common sense (& a couple of hours using Excel).Based on a silly interpretation of Einstein's chest thortX the bending is 0.87 arcsec.Based on the batshit crazy Einsteinian interpretation the bending is 1.75 arcsec.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 10:36:35There is no need for a finite universe, no need for a big bang.As long as you are prepared to believe the following fairy tales."each 200 million light year cosmic cell has its own creation zone "" each 200 million light year cosmic cell has its own ... annihilation zones (near edges),""aether is created" aether is ... annihilated "" mass (confined photons)(& free photons) are annihilated (in super massive black holes)."Just remember; there is absolutely no evidence for any of those ideas.On the other hand, there is experimental evidence for the big bang.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/03/2019 21:51:06I have shown that, based on the thortX for bending in an accelerating chest, the bending near the Sun would be 0.13 arcsec at Earth's orbit & 00 arcsec at infinity. Based on common sense (& a couple of hours using Excel).Based on a silly interpretation of Einstein's chest thortX the bending is 0.87 arcsec.Based on the batshit crazy Einsteinian interpretation the bending is 1.75 arcsec.Yes.And the experimental value is about 1.75 arcseconds.You really should accept that, when reality and your thoughts don't agree, it isn't because reality has made a mistake.
But Einstein's chestian equivalence (& chestian bending etc) when properly analysed
Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 20:34:51 But Einstein's chestian equivalence (& chestian bending etc) when properly analysed Or you got the maths wrong.You have done that before (by a factor of a million or so).Why should we imagine you have got the maths right here?in particular, why should we think you got it right and everyone who has looked at it over the last hundred years or so got it wrong?
havnt made a math mistake because i never use math. For all of my science stuff i use arithmetic, using Excel.
However come to think of it i did use math for the tuning fork frequency stuff,
Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/03/2019 22:17:42However come to think of it i did use math for the tuning fork frequency stuff, And you got it wrong, by a factor of about a million- like I said.Renaming bits of mathematics is not going to address this.You are claiming that you know more about science than everyone else- but you clearly don't understand it at even a basic level.
Yes, i dont understand science at even a basic level, & yes, i do know more about science than everyone. Here i mean Einsteinology in the first instance, & real science in the second.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/03/2019 19:14:31Madeatherist has been studiously avoiding answering the killer question.How does the Earth's ocean affect a satellite which is 15,000,000,000 metres from Earth and pointing away from it?
Quote from: mad aetherist on 21/03/2019 20:21:21Yes, i dont understand science at even a basic level, & yes, i do know more about science than everyone. Here i mean Einsteinology in the first instance, & real science in the second.Into which category do reflecting telescopes, radar dished and satellite TV antenna fall? Because you plainly don't understand them.
Madatherist has been studiously avoiding answering the killer question. How does the Earth's ocean affect a satellite which is 15,000,000,000 metres from Earth and pointing away from it?
Fundamentally, you seem to have muddled some inconsistent nonsense you dreamed up, with science.
i have a few simple novel ideas
At present the only possibility that i have is what Dr Robitaille said re the 4 K reference for the low frequency being a faux 4 K because of conduction due to the fixing,
They may be simple, but they are wrong.Quote from: mad aetherist on 21/03/2019 21:13:57At present the only possibility that i have is what Dr Robitaille said re the 4 K reference for the low frequency being a faux 4 K because of conduction due to the fixing,And I have explained why that does not make sense.It is insanely unlikely that the heat leak would give exactly the right answer.Even if it did then it's impossible for it not to change because the heat leak will vary.So how come it kept on giving the right answer?This isn't "einsteinian"- it's common sense. And you don't have an answer.
So how come they kept getting the right answer,
Quote from: mad aetherist on 21/03/2019 22:09:07So how come they kept getting the right answer, Because it's the right answer. What else would they get?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 22/03/2019 06:54:07Quote from: mad aetherist on 21/03/2019 22:09:07So how come they kept getting the right answer, Because it's the right answer. What else would they get?U said the 4 K reference must vary, thats why they couldnt have gotten the right answer, unless of course, they, they, cheated.