Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 72415850" data-attributes="member: 627"><p>Probably 20+ years in the lab and 80 years total. We didn't find any exotic forms of matter, but we certainly found a lot of errors in their mass estimation techniques. Just a few months ago the changed the mass estimates of Andromeda (our closest neighbor) by a factor of three! So much for the validity of their mass estimation techniques.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's even worse than you may realize because RC actually believes that magnetic field lines "reconnect", in a complete 'vacuum' no less, which blatantly violates Maxwell's equations. There is no such thing as a monopole in Maxwell's equations and magnetic fields have no source or sink, and no ability to disconnect or reconnect. For that matter, the concept of magnetic 'lines' is a gross *oversimplification* of a 3D topology of a whole field. It's like claiming that the topology lines on a topology map are "real" and the disconnect and reconnect and that is the real cause of earthquakes. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> I kid you not, he really is that clueless about electromagnetic theory. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>50 million more for LUX-LZ alone.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A lot more debt, and nothing to show for it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 72415850, member: 627"] Probably 20+ years in the lab and 80 years total. We didn't find any exotic forms of matter, but we certainly found a lot of errors in their mass estimation techniques. Just a few months ago the changed the mass estimates of Andromeda (our closest neighbor) by a factor of three! So much for the validity of their mass estimation techniques. It's even worse than you may realize because RC actually believes that magnetic field lines "reconnect", in a complete 'vacuum' no less, which blatantly violates Maxwell's equations. There is no such thing as a monopole in Maxwell's equations and magnetic fields have no source or sink, and no ability to disconnect or reconnect. For that matter, the concept of magnetic 'lines' is a gross *oversimplification* of a 3D topology of a whole field. It's like claiming that the topology lines on a topology map are "real" and the disconnect and reconnect and that is the real cause of earthquakes. :) I kid you not, he really is that clueless about electromagnetic theory. 50 million more for LUX-LZ alone. A lot more debt, and nothing to show for it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift
Top
Bottom