0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/02/2019 01:22:01For this reason, all of mainstreamphysics, chemistry, and biology combined forces to bury this data by any means possible, includingintimidation, character assassination, and outright lies.Oh look, more charges of conspiracy!
For this reason, all of mainstreamphysics, chemistry, and biology combined forces to bury this data by any means possible, includingintimidation, character assassination, and outright lies.
I think that it is just the usual runofthemill doginthemanger kind of global auto knee-jerk conspiracy.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/02/2019 22:29:03I think that it is just the usual runofthemill doginthemanger kind of global auto knee-jerk conspiracy.Oh look, more charges of conspiracy!
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/physics_suppression.png
What i see is that Dark Energy & Dark Matter & Dark Flow are needed to prop up Einsteinian dogma.
Adding and removing electrons from things very much changes their chemical identities (half of my doctoral thesis was focused on work I did in electrochemistry, so I know what I'm talking about here).H+ (just a proton) is the fundamental component of all Brønsted acids--it is an excellent catalyst for many chemical reactions, and will react quickly with any slightly basic compound.Add an electron to it, and you get an H atom, which is a free radical. It is not acidic at all, and instead reacts with compounds that have carbon-carbon double or triple bonds in them (alkenes and alkynes) as well as compounds with weak single bonds, like elemental halogens, and organometallic compounds.Add another electron to it, and you get H– (hydride). This is not acidic, actually it is a *very* strong base. It won't typically react with alkenes or alkynes, but can deprotonate many organic molecules (alcohols, terminal alkynes, primary amides etc. etc.). Under the right circumstances, it can also react with aldehydes and similar compounds to forms carbon-hydrogen bonds.Fe is iron. Fe2+ is iron minus two electrons, or ferrous ion--which is typically light green in color and highly water soluble. Take away another electron, and you get a pale yellow/orange ferric ion which is typically not very soluble in water.The list goes on and on...Long story short, charge is extremely important to the identity of a substance. H3O2– is NOT water.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 03:14:11What 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?
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.
Thats not the way i see it. What i see is that Dark Energy & Dark Matter & Dark Flow are needed to prop up Einsteinian dogma.
I wish i knew a bit more about chemistry & bonding etc
Today i went to an eye specialist & i told the tech assistant that checked my eyes & my eyesight that the hazyness seen by patients like myself after some eye operations was due to lots of small dot particles floating in the water in the cornea probly & the blurryness seen by patients like myself was due to that hazyness because the dot which might be say 10 microns forms an EZ layer say 100 microns in diameter & the refractive index of the EZ is 10% larger than bulk water, & the accompanying glare problem found in such eyes might be partly due to reflection off the EZ layer.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 03:31:06Today i went to an eye specialist & i told the tech assistant that checked my eyes & my eyesight that the hazyness seen by patients like myself after some eye operations was due to lots of small dot particles floating in the water in the cornea probly & the blurryness seen by patients like myself was due to that hazyness because the dot which might be say 10 microns forms an EZ layer say 100 microns in diameter & the refractive index of the EZ is 10% larger than bulk water, & the accompanying glare problem found in such eyes might be partly due to reflection off the EZ layer. The effect ihas a known demonstrable cause. No need for you to invent more nonsense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floater
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 03:35:47No 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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 03:14:11Thats not the way i see it. What i see is that Dark Energy & Dark Matter & Dark Flow are needed to prop up Einsteinian dogma.That may be what you see, but it's not what the evidence supports.Dark matter is needed because the real universe doesn't seem to follow Newtonian or Einsteinian physics without it.
because thems papers helped prop up Einsteinology.
But if u come across the mainstream explanation of blurriness
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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 20:52:04But if u come across the mainstream explanation of blurrinesshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mie_scattering Just for the record, it's a classical physics effect. You don't have to blame Einstein for it
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 21:01:16My 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?
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 21:01:16because thems papers helped prop up Einsteinology. But, and you seem to have missed this, THEY DON'T PROP IT UP. It really would be better if you stopped posting nonsense and learned some science.
Einstein's equations include Newton. Attack Newton & u attack Einstein.
But as i said, dark thisorthat defends ER.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/02/2019 21:56:32Einstein'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 19/02/2019 21:56:32But as i said, dark thisorthat defends ER.How?