The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Profile of Kryptid
  3. Show Posts
  4. Messages
  • Profile Info
    • Summary
    • Show Stats
    • Show Posts
      • Messages
      • Topics
      • Attachments
      • Thanked Posts
      • Posts Thanked By User
    • Show User Topics
      • User Created
      • User Participated In

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

  • Messages
  • Topics
  • Attachments
  • Thanked Posts
  • Posts Thanked By User

Messages - Kryptid

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 144
1
New Theories / Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« on: Today at 05:37:34 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on Today at 01:23:20
Good, then GR gives a 1/R for a spiral galaxy

If it did, then it would have been falsified long ago as it would not even match the behavior of gravity in our Solar System.

2
New Theories / Re: Do you know how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury?
« on: Today at 05:30:43 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on Today at 01:54:44
I think that even good theories etc can have a circular argument, as long as u know, but not knowing can i think lead to a bloody war. The main circular argument in SR & GR is that much of GR is modeled around ensuring that the constancy of the speed of light is retained, eg near mass, eg invoking time dilation & length contraction near mass to yield the slowing of light near mass.

That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking specifically how an equation derived in advance being so highly accurate when new data is used with it has anything to do with circular reasoning. Either an equation makes accurate predictions or it doesn't. There's nothing circular about it.

Quote from: mad aetherist on Today at 01:54:44
It would be handy to have easy access to such a list of precessions for all the planets.  But so difficult to find. 

So when you claimed that Venus and Mars don't match relativistic predictions (such as when you said that the anomalous perihelion precession of Mars is ten arcseconds instead of one), you were pulling numbers out of thin air?

Quote from: mad aetherist on Today at 01:54:44
I wonder why. Must be a good reason. Thinking thinking thinking.

Because there's a conspiracy to hide that obviously troubling data, of course.  ::)

Quote from: jsaldea12 on Today at 03:13:08
COMPARE THE SIMPLE MATH COMPUTATION, USING SEMILATUS RECTUM COMPUTATION B TO RELATIVISTIC COMPUTATION PER ANNEX B. SEE THE FIGURES FOR ALL PLANETS. THEY ARE THE SAME AND EXACT.!!IT PROVES THAT THE COMPUTATION OF DR. EINSTEIN IS THAT WAY, WORK BACK.

Non-sequitur. How does it prove that he worked backwards?

3
New Theories / Re: Do you know how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury?
« on: Today at 00:12:21 »
Quote from: jsaldea12 on Today at 00:08:22
Reiterating, this is the only way Dr. Einstein saw the problem., by working back and he did it.

Saying it more than once doesn't make it true.

4
New Theories / Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« on: Today at 00:10:14 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on Yesterday at 22:11:00
Einstein's GR includes Newton. Einstein's GR is an extension of Newton (a modification if u like). Kill Newton & Einstein dies.

Quote from: Kryptid on Yesterday at 22:01:14
That makes absolutely no sense when you consider that Newton's equations and Einstein's equations give different answers to queries about things like kinetic energy and gravitational lensing. Newton being wrong then obviously does not make Einstein wrong.

Quote from: mad aetherist on Yesterday at 22:11:00
Or praps u dont care if Newton dies.  Praps u are confident that Einsteinian relativity can simply detach from Newton's corpse & simply suck onto any passing basic body of theory while that body is alive, until that theory is itself killed off or something, at which time ER can just do it all again, getting bigger all the time, nothing to see here, hey everyone look over there its a blackhole.

Relativity is a theory unto itself. It makes its own predictions. It doesn't "care" what other theories do or do not exist.

5
New Theories / Re: Do you know how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury?
« on: Today at 00:06:37 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on Yesterday at 23:09:22
Here is some good wordage re this.

Just as I thought, no evidence, just a bunch of unverified suspicions...

Quote from: mad aetherist on Yesterday at 23:36:10
I wonder whether there is a circular argument in there somewhere.

Explain how.

Quote from: mad aetherist on Yesterday at 23:36:10
But in any case all it takes is one disagreement to sink the equation

Which is not evidence that such a disagreement actually exists.

Quote
i believe that Mars or Venus does just that.

I don't what you "believe". Give me a link to a reputable source showing that the precession of Mars and Venus clash with relativity's predictions.

Quote from: jsaldea12 on Yesterday at 23:37:55
That is the only way  the anomalous precession of Mercury can be resolved, by working back.

Just because you can't understand how he worked it out doesn't mean that working backwards is the only way he could have done it.

6
New Theories / Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« on: Yesterday at 22:01:14 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on Yesterday at 21:56:32
Einstein's equations include Newton. Attack Newton & u attack Einstein.

That makes absolutely no sense when you consider that Newton's equations and Einstein's equations give different answers to queries about things like kinetic energy and gravitational lensing. Newton being wrong then obviously does not make Einstein wrong.

Quote from: mad aetherist on Yesterday at 21:56:32
But as i said, dark thisorthat defends ER.

How?

7
New Theories / Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« on: Yesterday at 21:25:28 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on Yesterday at 21:01:16
My point was that the science-mafia (Einsteinologists) were happy to accept papers etc positing dark this & dark that because thems papers helped prop up Einsteinology.

And I ask again, how does dark matter "prop up" relativity when relativity doesn't even factor into the anomalous galactic rotation curves?

8
New Theories / Re: Do you know how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury?
« on: Yesterday at 14:48:33 »
I don't understand what you are trying to say with those tables. What do "Annex A" and "Semilatus Rectum Annex B" mean?

Quote from: jsaldea12 on Yesterday at 14:31:29
THE ONLY WAY THAT ANOMALOUS PRECESSION IS ARRIVED/RESOLVED..BY WORKING BACK..

Go back and read reply #44. Einstein had no way of knowing what the precession rate of the Hulse-Taylor binary would be, yet his equation predicts it accurately. You can't work backwards from data you don't have.

9
New Theories / Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« on: Yesterday at 14:33:36 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on Yesterday at 03:35:47
No i dont think that there is any fudging of measurements -- but any redshift computations & crunching of thems measurements to make their data will be nonsense hencely some of their data will be nonsense -- & their dark theories are wrong.

Why do you consider dark matter essential to supporting relativity? The initial evidence for dark matter, the anomalous galactic rotation curves, was actually implied by Kepler's second law (formulated long before relativity). The velocity of those stars is far too small for relativistic effects to be important anyway.

10
New Theories / Re: Inviting comments from NASA, EHT, on contention NO BLACK HOLE EXISTS ?
« on: Yesterday at 04:22:28 »
Quote from: jsaldea12 on Yesterday at 04:13:34
It was respected Forum King Kriptid who said:

Forum titles here are automatically given based on post count. If you are implying that I am calling myself a "forum king", then you are mistaken.

Quote from: jsaldea12 on Yesterday at 04:13:34
Nevertheless both  have inherent positive and negative property, the same inherent positive and negative property of spacetime.

I'm sure I've asked this before, but what are these positive and negative properties you are talking about?

Quote from: jsaldea12 on Yesterday at 04:13:34
Astronomical telescopes from two separate places, 2,000 miles away, provide the data, feed it to laser interferometers underground tunnels

You've got it backwards. The interferometers are providing the data.

Quote from: jsaldea12 on Yesterday at 04:13:34
arms,some 2,000 miles long, completely emptied of air, thus vacuumed 

The arms are not 2,000 miles long. They are only 4 kilometers long.

Quote from: jsaldea12 on Yesterday at 04:13:34
The point is all the way after astronomical telescope pick up the collision of galaxiy

They aren't detecting the collision of galaxies, they detecting the collisions of neutron stars and black holes.

Quote from: jsaldea12 on Yesterday at 04:13:34
Because light waves and gravitational waves are the function, the making of waves on the fabric of spacetime

You have yet to establish that light waves are function of the fabric of space-time.

Quote from: jsaldea12 on Yesterday at 04:13:34
But why does the super-jets, super-heated,jettisoned from super-galaxy become the signature of black hole.

They aren't the signature of the black holes that LIGO is detecting.

Quote from: jsaldea12 on Yesterday at 04:13:34
But the SAME giant object, not a supposed black hole,  can eject same jets!!

That has nothing at all to do with LIGO's gravitational wave detections so it's irrelevant.

11
New Theories / Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« on: Yesterday at 03:15:32 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on Yesterday at 03:14:11
What i see is that Dark Energy & Dark Matter & Dark Flow are needed to prop up Einsteinian dogma.

So they faked data, huh? Another conspiracy claim?

12
New Theories / Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« on: Yesterday at 00:13:51 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/02/2019 22:29:03
I think that it is just the usual runofthemill doginthemanger kind of global auto knee-jerk conspiracy.

Oh look, more charges of conspiracy!

13
New Theories / Re: Do you know how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury?
« on: Yesterday at 00:07:57 »
Quote from: jsaldea12 on 18/02/2019 22:25:19
I assure you there is a way how to translate that amazing   equation of imaginative Dr. Einstein into simple math that high school students can understand.

High school students can already understand algebra. Or at least they can in the United States. I admittedly don't know what high school is like in the Philippines.

Of course, if you think you can make the equation simpler while still retaining its accuracy, please show us how to do it.

14
New Theories / Re: Inviting comments from NASA, EHT, on contention NO BLACK HOLE EXISTS ?
« on: Yesterday at 00:05:11 »
Quote from: jsaldea12 on 18/02/2019 23:14:19
Why do you say that the detected speed of gravitational waves and light waves, both with electro-magnetic property,

When were gravitational waves ever demonstrated by experiment to have electromagnetic properties? Please don't try to use your own hypotheses as evidence, because they aren't.

Quote from: jsaldea12 on 18/02/2019 23:14:19
on ejected super heated  jets of super-galaxies are the same, and if both are detected , how do LIGO re- assure that both have same speed of light.

There are multiple detectors involved. Measuring the difference in time involved between detection at one site and another site allows for calculation of speed.

Quote from: jsaldea12 on 18/02/2019 23:14:19
Final query:  why do you say that the same speed of gravitational waves and light waves  affirm  black hole. LIGO never said that ..

LIGO never said that and neither did I. It's the particular pattern that the gravitational waves exhibited that demonstrate that black holes are what produced them. I have a book on this subject written by Kip Thorne from 1994 that describes what a signal from a black hole merger would like if detected by a gravitational wave detector. So we have known for quite some time exactly what it would look like.

15
New Theories / Re: Gerald Pollack -- EZ water, a fourth phase of water?
« on: 18/02/2019 20:38:06 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/02/2019 01:22:01
For this reason, all of mainstream
physics, chemistry, and biology combined forces to bury this data by any means possible, including
intimidation, character assassination, and outright lies.

Oh look, more charges of conspiracy!

16
New Theories / Re: Inviting comments from NASA, EHT, on contention NO BLACK HOLE EXISTS ?
« on: 18/02/2019 20:32:34 »
Quote from: jsaldea12 on 18/02/2019 13:13:00
Can you repute the proofs/ evidences I presented?

We already have. LIGO unambiguously detected the collisions of black holes.

17
New Theories / Re: Do you know how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury?
« on: 18/02/2019 20:29:21 »
Quote from: jsaldea12 on 18/02/2019 13:01:48
Please  translate that into simple math equation that every one can follow.   jsaldea  Feb. 17, 2019.

Quote from: Kryptid on 18/02/2019 01:27:53
If that isn't simple enough, then I think it's time you try to learn more math.

18
New Theories / Re: Do you know how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury?
« on: 18/02/2019 01:27:53 »
Quote from: mad aetherist on 17/02/2019 11:32:11
When u fraudulently work backwards to make a nonsense equation spit out a desired number

Quote from: mad aetherist on 17/02/2019 21:11:31
so he played around with the menu to get the number.

Do you have evidence that this is what Einstein did? The perihelion precession of the Hulse-Taylor binary wasn't known by Einstein (the system wasn't even discovered until 1974), so obviously he couldn't have based any kind of equation on working backwards from that particular information. We have measured the precession of that system at 4.2266 + 10-5 degrees per year: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991SvAL...17..301I and I just got done calculating the precession using the earlier equation at 4.230853 degrees per year (I can post my workings if you're doubtful). So your "fraud" claim is nonsense.

Quote from: mad aetherist on 17/02/2019 11:32:11
then it wont work in any other case, ie every other case, eg Venus.

Quote from: mad aetherist on 17/02/2019 21:11:31
And now of course that recipe dont work for any other planet, badly, in the case of Venus Alby's precession aint even in the correct direction.   And for Mars he gets 1 arcsec instead of 10 arcsec.

This is news to me. Do you have a source for these claims of the other planets not matching relativistic predictions?

Quote from: jsaldea12 on 18/02/2019 00:12:41
Can we translate his equation in simple math equation very understandable to all. Please do.

This is the best I can do:

Precession  = (744.15 x (semi-major axis)2)/((orbital period)2 x (speed of light)2 x (1-(eccentricity)2))

If that isn't simple enough, then I think it's time you try to learn more math.

19
New Theories / Re: Do you know how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury?
« on: 17/02/2019 15:00:22 »
Quote from: jsaldea12 on 17/02/2019 13:22:03
Thus do show us the simple math equation that is easy to understand. That equation is right.

And again, I ask, how would you make the equation I posted any simpler than it already is?

20
New Theories / Re: Do you know how Dr. Einstein solved the anomalous precession of Mercury?
« on: 17/02/2019 04:54:14 »
Quote from: jsaldea12 on 17/02/2019 04:48:57
hard to understand

It's just algebra. How is that hard to understand?

Quote from: jsaldea12 on 17/02/2019 04:48:57
But the astronomical equation can translated into simple high school math  equation

Please tell me how you would make it any simpler than it already is.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 144
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.072 seconds with 63 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.