General Space Thread

[Bombadil]

MOD NOTE: IDONT CARE WHOS RIGHT OR WRONG> CUT THE ABUSE AND POST POLITELY.

[webtrekker]

21 minutes ago, Bombadil said:

MOD NOTE: IDONT CARE WHOS RIGHT OR WRONG> CUT THE ABUSE AND POST POLITELY.

 

Ok. I've said all I'm going to say anyway. I've got something much more important to do now ............... I missed Corrers last night and need to watch catchup!

 

 

 

[TheConsultant]

24 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

 

Ok. I've said all I'm going to say anyway. I've got something much more important to do now ............... I missed Corrers last night and need to watch catchup!

 

 

 

You don't accept rationalwiki as a resource? aw man! how about fullfact? factchecker.org? snopes? no?...lol

As for what I have read, yes both Einstein and Relativity were wrong. But, some of his stolen works are relevant to some things still. Henri Poncaire was the man who came up with some of his less erroneous ramblings.

Edited August 18, 2022 by TheConsultant

[Arnie]

4 hours ago, webtrekker said:

 

If all you can come up with is RationalWiki drivel then we'll just end the discussion here.

 

Spoken with profound evasion. If all it was , was opinion, you would have a point. But every statement is backed up with a direct citation from a source that offers direct rebuttal. So no, it isn't all I can come up with and you failed to respond to this:

"Mr C" in this account:

Gerard ’t Hooft, Strange Misconceptions of General Relativity (uu.nl)

 

As for your request to solve the circles equation, I am not your gopher. You have enough to easily solve it yourself.

 

Your GPS explanation fails in its first sentence. It assumes there is a light carrying medium. There isn't.

[Arnie]

2 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

You don't accept rationalwiki as a resource? aw man! how about fullfact? factchecker.org? snopes? no?...lol

 

Please offer me some sources that you accept and I will give them the same consideration as you just did.

[TheConsultant]

3 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

Please offer me some sources that you accept and I will give them the same consideration as you just did.

Sources for what? I wasn't talking to you or offering information other than Einstein and relativity being wrong. That isn't new information though.

[webtrekker]

4 hours ago, Bombadil said:

MOD NOTE: IDONT CARE WHOS RIGHT OR WRONG> CUT THE ABUSE AND POST POLITELY.

 

 

47 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

Spoken with profound evasion. If all it was , was opinion, you would have a point. But every statement is backed up with a direct citation from a source that offers direct rebuttal. So no, it isn't all I can come up with and you failed to respond to this:

"Mr C" in this account:

Gerard ’t Hooft, Strange Misconceptions of General Relativity (uu.nl)

 

As for your request to solve the circles equation, I am not your gopher. You have enough to easily solve it yourself.

 

Your GPS explanation fails in its first sentence. It assumes there is a light carrying medium. There isn't.

 

 

I think you need to read Bombadil's post above.

 

 

 

[sickofallthebollocks]

More NASA fakery?  In particular the microphone inside his neck?

 

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by sickofallthebollocks

[Arnie]

56 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

I think you need to read Bombadil's post above.

 

You avoided my post and have done so again. There was nothing insulting or rude in what you quoted.

[Arnie]

1 hour ago, TheConsultant said:

Sources for what? I wasn't talking to you

 

Yes you were - indirectly. I offered the rationalwiki link in the first place and your post dismisses it. It's a fair question to ask what sources you would find acceptable.

[TheConsultant]

2 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

Yes you were - indirectly. I offered the rationalwiki link in the first place and your post dismisses it. It's a fair question to ask what sources you would find acceptable.

Ok, entirely depends on what subject you are wanting information on.

[Arnie]

59 minutes ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

More NASA fakery?  In particular the microphone inside his neck?

 

1. The coffee link is a digital artefact. It is beyond any logic to fake pretend coffee stains. There is zero point to do this and absurdly easy to stain a plastic bag anyway.

2. NASA did not quickly remove that video, he doesn't tell you where it's from anyway.

3. The actual microphone "in the neck" is just artefacts again from digital transmission over distance. This poorly understood claim about CGI makes no sense once again. You can see quite clearly that it is solid and in his hand. It passes in front of a similar colour area of his neck and the definition degrades.

4. Oh then there is the Ralph Wiggins - "Hey look at the poor animation of the Lunar Module" bare assertion. Looks fine to me and to engineers who understand orbital mechanics. Shall I put up the whole sequence where a tiny dot merges into a high definition LM? Like Star Trek opening only realistic.

5. Finally, his "see-through head". This is simply a video merge edit. There is another one where his arm disappears, only the major parts of the background all change noticeably showing the merge edit again. That's what video editors do.

 

Here is a tour video that quite clearly cannot be using CGI or blue screens:

 

They are in space. Space is real. The ISS is real.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Arnie

[Arnie]

18 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

Ok, entirely depends on what subject you are wanting information on.

 

Sources for the exact question I was asked. The rationalwiki has citations that can be checked. I think the fact a human edits it shouldn't discount its validity. All websites are edited by humans. Wiki at least attempts to support its claims with direct links. I know academics are told not to use wiki but by the same token it leads you to some other useful sources.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Arnie

[TheConsultant]

1 minute ago, Arnie said:

 

Sources for the exact question I was asked. The rationalwiki has citations that can be checked. I think the fact a human edits it shouldn't discount its validity. All websites are edited by humans. Wiki at least attempts to support its claims with direct links. I know academics are told not to use wiki but by the same token it leads you to some other useful sources.

What were you asked, you have been asked quite a lot of questions from what I can tell. 

my reason for disliking rationalwiki is nothing to do with being edited by people or not

[sickofallthebollocks]

2 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

1. The coffee link is a digital artefact. It is beyond any logic to fake pretend coffee stains. There is zero point to do this and absurdly easy to stain a plastic bag anyway.

2. NASA did not quickly remove that video, he doesn't tell you where it's from anyway.

3. The actual microphone "in the neck" is just artefacts again from digital transmission over distance. This poorly understood claim about CGI makes no sense once again. You can see quite clearly that it is solid and in his hand. It passes in front of a similar colour area of his neck and the definition degrades.

4. Oh then there is the Ralph Wiggins - "Hey look at the poor animation of the Lunar Module" bare assertion. Looks fine to me and to engineers who understand orbital mechanics. Shall I put up the whole sequence where a tiny dot merges into a high definition LM? Like Star Trek opening only realistic.

5. Finally, his "see-through head". This is simply a video merge edit. There is another one where his arm disappears, only the major parts of the background all change noticeably showing the merge edit again. That's what video editors do.

 

Here is a tour video that quite clearly cannot be using CGI or blue screens:

 

They are in space. Space is real. The ISS is real.

See?  You can do it Arnie... you can post a reply without being too arsey.  Well done.
Maybe just chill out a bit with the somewhat vehement replies?
I don't happen to prescribe to your opinions entirely, as of course -  you don't to mine, but you seem to know your stuff and stick to it.  Fair enough. 
Just chill - noone here minds you disagreeing - just maybe chill out a bit.
 

[Arnie]

8 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

What were you asked, you have been asked quite a lot of questions from what I can tell. 

my reason for disliking rationalwiki is nothing to do with being edited by people or not

 

Oh it was to do with a couple of Electric Universe videos and the nature of the guy who did them in 2013. Why don't you like it?

Edited August 18, 2022 by Arnie

[TheConsultant]

Just now, Arnie said:

 

Oh it was to do with a couple of Electric Universe videos and the nature of the guy who did them in 2013. Why don't you like it?

It's essentially a factcheck website, not really scientific and I have read multiple articles on there refuting things I have personally worked on before, so you know, there is that.

Of course like wikipedia, not all of it is bollocks :) Now I need to go watch those electric universe videos :(
 

[webtrekker]

18 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

It's essentially a factcheck website, not really scientific and I have read multiple articles on there refuting things I have personally worked on before, so you know, there is that.

Of course like wikipedia, not all of it is bollocks :) Now I need to go watch those electric universe videos :(
 

 

Except that they weren't Electric Universe videos! Arnie got that entirely wrong! They were videos about Stephen Crothers, who is a mathematician who just happened to be a guest speaker at an EE conference. Crothers puts forth valid arguments why Einstein's equations are wrong and how Black Hole,s derived from those equations, are therefore an impossibility.

 

 

[webtrekker]

3 hours ago, Arnie said:

As for your request to solve the circles equation, I am not your gopher. You have enough to easily solve it yourself.

 

Just as I thought, you can't work out the answer.

[TheConsultant]

7 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

 

Except that they weren't Electric Universe videos! Arnie got that entirely wrong! They were videos about Stephen Crothers, who is a mathematician who just happened to be a guest speaker at an EE conference. Crothers puts forth valid arguments why Einstein's equations are wrong and how Black Hole,s derived from those equations, are therefore an impossibility.

 

 

Funnily enough I just finished another video that involved Einstein equations being wrong lol. I will watch the videos though :)

[webtrekker]

Just now, TheConsultant said:

Funnily enough I just finished another video that involved Einstein equations being wrong lol. I will watch the videos though :)

 

I'm not saying Crothers is 100% correct as my own grasp of mathematics doesn't include Tensor Algebra, but his arguments look bloody good to me and he explains them in a clear manner.

[TheConsultant]

1 minute ago, webtrekker said:

 

I'm not saying Crothers is 100% correct as my own grasp of mathematics doesn't include Tensor Algebra, but his arguments look bloody good to me and he explains them in a clear manner.

My maths is beyond a joke

[Arnie]

8 hours ago, webtrekker said:

 

Except that they weren't Electric Universe videos! Arnie got that entirely wrong! They were videos about Stephen Crothers, who is a mathematician who just happened to be a guest speaker at an EE conference. Crothers puts forth valid arguments why Einstein's equations are wrong and how Black Hole,s derived from those equations, are therefore an impossibility.

 

It is part of his Electric Universe claim. His arguments were refuted in the video and links given.

[Arnie]

8 hours ago, webtrekker said:

Just as I thought, you can't work out the answer.

 

You're baiting me on an off topic request. You can think what you like - my maths is good enough to solve this.

 

Oh what the hell 0.6862915011136515

Edited August 19, 2022 by Arnie

[TheConsultant]

I have taken it upon myself to refute (lazily mind you) the refutation of electrical universe you posted on page 2. As taken from here: https://www.dapla.org/electric-universe-theory-debunked/

--------

*Italics are from the above article, bold is my take.*

 

There are several problems with the Electric Universe theory, which are what lead to the theory being called a conspiracy. First, the claim is not scientifically proven. Second, it is not written in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Finally, the Electric Universe does not apply to all unknown phenomena. These holes are what drive the followers of the Electric World out of the fold. The theory is an anti-science cult.

At what point does 'our' current understanding even remotely claim to understand all phenomena? or even some of them logically, scientifically and completely? It doesn't, the above opening gambit calls upon peer review, which is no different to referring to others who think similarly. In mathematics you show your working, partly so the examiner can see at which step you took a wrong turn, peer review is referring to other people who are just as lost as the rest. All whilst patting one another on the back. An anti science cult would more accurately be mainstream science, certainly in physics.

Third, the Electric Universe has no experimental evidence. It fails to explain how the sun is driven by fusion in its core. Furthermore, it fails to predict the existence of neutrinos, which is a key ingredient of the fusion model. Finally, the Electric-Universe fails to predict how the spectral lines of photons will appear from the core of the sun. In other words, the theory doesn’t predict the astronomical phenomenon of neutrinos.

No experimental evidence of an ionosphere? magnetosphere? plasma being the most abundant form of 'matter'? 

Taken from here: https://www.psfc.mit.edu/vision/what_is_plasma - I hope MIT is a decent enough resource.

The Electric Universe is a fringe pseudoscience that has no experimental evidence. It is a pet belief of a handful of people who are uninformed in the relevant sciences. It is closely linked to conspiracy theories and conspiracy mongering, and the writings are full of words like “orthodoxy” and “dogma.” Despite this, the Electric Universe has many adherents who see themselves as brave mavericks. But the electric universe theory has no scientific basis and most astronomers do not even try to explain it.

See above.

The Electric Universe has no experimental evidence. Instead, it relies on a concept called Plasma Cosmology. While this theory is valid, it has no peer-reviewed research to support it. Likewise, the concept of an Electric Universe is based on pseudoscience, not science. Therefore, it is a good idea to reject it as a falsehood. Its followers, however, consider it a viable scientific hypothesis.
 

Its not a theory, plasma is the most common form of "matter". The article repeating itself with words like pseudoscience, cult and no experimental evidence. Again, see above.

The Electric Universe is a pseudoscience that uses electricity to explain the Universe. It is based on aether and electricity and is essentially a myth. It uses the same myths that traditional science has and cites myths to support their theory. It is a science that relies on these two elements to explain the existence of the universe. The Electricity is not scientific. It is a conspiracy of delusions.

A lot of similar sentences in this without actually ever diving in to refute any of electrical universes claims. Generally when people attack the person, or use the terms, cult, pseudoscience, bogus, nonsense, without actually showing why that is the case, generally speaking, they have nothing.

The Electric Universe is an extreme version of a religious philosophy. It claims that space is filled with ‘plasma’ and that the entire universe is composed of ‘electricity’. This concept also uses “electricity’ as a metaphor for the world. In fact, a person can actually feel a polar-like sensation in an electric field. The same polarity affects the human mind. So, the Electricity can be said to be an ideal religion.

Ok, so in the universe the most common state of matter is plasma, one of four fundamental states. Less common on Earth, sure, but still all around the planet at all times between the ionoshpere and the planets surface. Lightning is plasma, it is also what gives rise to the Schumann Resonance. 

The Electric Universe is a non-theory of the origin of the universe. It is an idea about how the universe works. While Einstein and Maxwell’s ideas were based on creationist James Clerk Maxwell’s research, the Electricity is a theory that explains the world. In its current form, it is not a scientific theory, but a theoretical idea. It is simply a non-theory.

So this states its both a theoretical idea and simply not a theory. wow.

The Electric Universe is a pseudo-myth that believes that the universe is made up of ‘plasma’. The Electricity is a popular belief among a number of scientists and is based on a concept called the ‘electric universe’. It is the theory that has a wide appeal among a variety of people. This concept is a result of a natural phenomenon known as “electricity.”

I don't like to repeat myself as much as this so bare with me whilst I start to copy and paste some of my previous answers. See above.
 

The Electric Universe claims that the universe is filled with ‘plasma’. It believes that the filaments that connect all the stars are made up of plasma. The Electricity concept defines the universe as a plasma ball, and is therefore an unsupported theory according to mainstream astronomy. While this idea does have some supporters, there is no scientific evidence to support it. Ultimately, the Electricity is an imaginary concept.

My. brain. hurts.

The Electric Universe model is a bogus concept. It has been discredited for a number of reasons. It is a pseudo-theory, and the Electricity is a myth. It is also far from the truth, despite the fact that it has many supporters. The electrical universe is not as ridiculous as the flat earth theory. This model, though, is a very controversial model. Its supporters claim it is the only true one.

 

Is the writer worried they may have been misled or mistaken ? They seem very invested in making sure anyone reading this "refutation" of Electrical Universe is seen as a pseudoscientist, cultist, quack etc.
 

The cult is believing "matter" can explain the universe completely, it doesn't, and never will as it falls down as soon as you scratch at the surface. Even just a little bit.