Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I would think so too, but obviously they can’t.I would think trained astronomers could tell the different between abnormally shaped galaxies vs galaxies distorted from gravitational lensing.
What stars? Do you see any stars?Because of the stars in the foreground galaxy.
Electricity affects everything, including you.So how is "electric gravity" affecting atoms when most atoms have a neutral charge?
If planes are so much heavier than air, how can planes fly on air?If electromagnetism is so much stronger than gravity, how can we fly in planes?
Are you referring to peer-reviewed papers on cosmology? Because if you are, Consensus Cosmology can take a hike.Would you mind providing some links to those research papers? Thanks!
Why do you ask for an explanation when what you have is retrofitted?So how about explaining the blackbody spectrum observed by the COBE satellite in the cosmic microwave background radiation?
How about Cabal providing the evidence?How about answering Cabal's question
I don't see any demonstration of "space warping" in these articles.
Are you referring to peer-reviewed papers on cosmology? Because if you are, Consensus Cosmology can take a hike.
Why do you ask for an explanation when what you have is retrofitted?
How about Cabal providing the evidence?
EU is based on physics.EU barely predicts anything.
You mean this one?Did you miss the gravitational lensing photo? I think it's been posted enough times.
What if you set aside 1000 years to work on it?What? That doesn't correspond to anything I wrote. Evolutionary theory certainly says it would be possible to breed a "better" human population. But it says nothing about whether it would be right or wrong to do so. Further research is required only in that it would expand our knowledge even further. But it still wouldn't lend anything to whether we should get gung-ho about eugenics.
What if you set aside 1000 years to work on it?
Could your R&D department make it work?
I would think so too, but obviously they can’t.
Galaxies tend to contain stars.What stars? Do you see any stars?
Even without the current interpetation, the picture above appears as though someone took it with a "fish eye" lense. "Arcs" do not make sense considering the "circled" affects of the picture.All you have is a Consensus interpretation.
Unless the material cannot conduct electricity. Why don't we see non-conductive materials flying off of the planet?Electricity affects everything, including you.
Gravity is a weak force. The plane is flying against gravity. If the electromagnetic force is 1000 times stronger than gravity then planes would need 1000 times more thrust to lift off.If planes are so much heavier than air, how can planes fly on air?
I'm sure there are peer reviewed papers on EU cosmology, until the blackbody spectrum was discovered it was quite competitive with the current cosmology. You want us to accept it, show us the research.Are you referring to peer-reviewed papers on cosmology? Because if you are, Consensus Cosmology can take a hike.
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.pdfWhy do you ask for an explanation when what you have is retrofitted?
Here it is again:How about Cabal providing the evidence?
I don't see any demonstration of "space warping" in these articles.
You have no clue what point I'm making, do you?Are you in a rush for eugenics to work, AV? You seem a little anxious.
You have no clue what point I'm making, do you?
Let me give you a piece of good advice, my friend.
When I ask a good question like I did, and the old-timers here don't answer me --- take my word for it --- it's because they know [me] better.
That 'eugenics, research, R&D, and 1000 years' should have tipped you off as to what I'm getting at.
Oh I know what point you're trying to make. I simply wanted to harass an answer out of you before anyone took the bait for what you think is a very devious trap.You have no clue what point I'm making, do you?
Let me give you a piece of good advice, my friend.
When I ask a good question like I did, and the old-timers here don't answer me --- take my word for it --- it's because they know [me] better.
That 'eugenics, research, R&D, and 1000 years' should have tipped you off as to what I'm getting at.
Never mind, though --- forget my last post.Oh I know what point you're trying to make. I simply wanted to harass an answer out of you before anyone took the bait for what you think is a very devious trap.
Ahem ... um ... through research?The #1 problem with eugenics- how do we decide what traits are "good" and what traits are "bad".
Ahem ... um ... through research?
Ahem ... um ... through research?
You have no clue what point I'm making, do you?
Let me give you a piece of good advice, my friend.
When I ask a good question like I did, and the old-timers here don't answer me --- take my word for it --- it's because they know [me] better.
That 'eugenics, research, R&D, and 1000 years' should have tipped you off as to what I'm getting at.
Starbucks' top espressomologists are way ahead of you.Now for the big question. Since the Universe is run by steam (confirmed here at CF) is it possible to find a planet wholly made up of Cappuccino coffee?
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
No, I sure don't.
Are they victims of God's will, too?
I'll be more than happy to include them in my science-can-take-a-hike motto, or filter them out via my boolean standards, or just automatically assume they're wrong vis-a-vis my Prime Directive, if you want.
Your call.
I warn you though --- don't bother giving me a screen and a half of science, then expect me to kowtow to it, or you'll be disappointed when I handwave it away because it can't get past any of my three checkpoints listed above.
AV... here's the thing that confuses me about what you are doing here...
If you want to believe stuff that is contradicted by science, really, that is your prerogative. So if you want to handwave away anything, even the most well supported science on the basis of conflict with the Bible, well, really thats your call.
I can respect that, really I can... but what I DON'T get, is why you keep coming in telling people you don't believe this science stuff... we get it, you don't buy what rigorous scientific investigation says. OK. Fine.
But given that you implicitly accept that your position is unscientific, that your beliefs are directly contradictory to what the scientific method of investigation reveals... what do you expect those of us who practice the scientific method to do? Suddenly give it up and buy into your POV because... well, because you say we should? Or what? I mean, what do you hope to achieve here? I mean, I'm sure you understand that most people in this forum will only accept revised scientific understanding when NEW scientific evidence comes to light, so, since you're not actually trying to refute scientific information with BETTER scientific information... what do you expect to happen?
Galaxies tend to contain stars.
They are plenty of plasma arcs in the universe. They are all over the place. The simpler explanation of the universe ought to be based on what we already know, not fictitious lenses – Occam’s Razor.
Even without the current interpetation, the picture above appears as though someone took it with a "fish eye" lense. "Arcs" do not make sense considering the "circled" affects of the picture.
Irrelevant.Unless the material cannot conduct electricity. Why don't we see non-conductive materials flying off of the planet?
Gravity is a weak force. The plane is flying against gravity. If the electromagnetic force is 1000 times stronger than gravity then planes would need 1000 times more thrust to lift off.
There is no competition between Big Bang metaphysics and EU physics. The two don’t compare. One is faith based. The other is physics based. If you want to compare Big Bang theology with something, try religion.I'm sure there are peer reviewed papers on EU cosmology, until the blackbody spectrum was discovered it was quite competitive with the current cosmology.
I’ve learnt way back not to “want” anyone to accept anything in this forum. Not my intent. We either accept or we don’t. That’s our prerogative.You want us to accept it, show us the research.
You don’t get it, do you?http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.pdf
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/PlanckStory.pdf
http://linas.org/mirrors/cosmology.berkeley.edu/2003.05.31/Classes/F2002/PHYS112/Phys112_05.pdf
How is a phenomena discovered recently "retrofitted" into a formula hypothesized in the early 1900's?
I am not seeing what you are seeing. But that’s not surprising because where you see two I see five, as shown below:Here it is again:
"Care to explain why a whole bunch of different galaxies separated by really quite large gaps all just happen to distort in exactly the same way so as to form not just a distinctive overall ring pattern but also how these ring patterns are explained both qualitatively and quantitatively by GR?"
I asked for an empirical demonstration of your interpretation of “space warping”, and all you do is offer more interpretation?
Disqualified for cheating. Fail.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?