ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th December 2019, 02:09 AM   #361
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
The world is not made anew each day. You clearly have an issue with Jews and successful Jews at that.


If you wanna talk about politics then go in a political thread. Thanks.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 02:35 AM   #362
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
So FT can save lives, specially those with cancer, with its time travel into the future and I still see symptoms of denialism?

I say those who are not willing to contribute are accomplices quite simply.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 04:40 AM   #363
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,525
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
How?
Do you want me to say it yet again?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 04:43 AM   #364
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,525
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
How?
As I showed in my examples, the rotation of an object depends only upon the acceleration of the constituent particles of an object with respect to each other and not on any specific reference frame or reference object.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 06:21 AM   #365
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,393
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Ok the plasma is a nuclear reaction and not chemical.
NO. I didn't say it was nuclear, either.

Quote:
How does that make Einstein the almighty physicist?
I think you're confused. My questions about plasma have NOTHING to do with Einstein.

Also, I've already told you that Einstein is not 'almighty' TWICE at least.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 06:59 AM   #366
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,580
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
If you wanna talk about politics then go in a political thread. Thanks.
It's not for you to tell me where I post.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 06:59 AM   #367
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,663
wish fulfillment is not a scientific argument

Here's a mode of argument you don't see every day:

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
So FT can save lives, specially those with cancer, with its time travel into the future and I still see symptoms of denialism?

I say those who are not willing to contribute are accomplices quite simply.

philippeb8 is saying FT would make time travel possible, which would make it possible to save lives by curing cancer, so everyone who denies FT is an accomplice of some sort, presumably an accomplice in the deaths of cancer victims.

philippeb8 apparently believes that wishing makes a thing come true, provided he/she/it can postulate even a remote connection (such as an imagined connection between FT and time travel) that would allow one thing wished for (such as FT) to enable another thing that is more generally wished for (curing cancer).

That is not how science works. That is not how any kind of rational thought works.

That is how magical thinking fails.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 07:25 AM   #368
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,580
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Here's a mode of argument you don't see every day:




philippeb8 is saying FT would make time travel possible, which would make it possible to save lives by curing cancer, so everyone who denies FT is an accomplice of some sort, presumably an accomplice in the deaths of cancer victims.

philippeb8 apparently believes that wishing makes a thing come true, provided he/she/it can postulate even a remote connection (such as an imagined connection between FT and time travel) that would allow one thing wished for (such as FT) to enable another thing that is more generally wished for (curing cancer).

That is not how science works. That is not how any kind of rational thought works.

That is how magical thinking fails.
I was just thinking that he seemed to have skipped a few steps in-between a silly, little thought experiment and curing cancer through time travel.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 07:42 AM   #369
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,644
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
So FT can save lives, specially those with cancer, with its time travel into the future and I still see symptoms of denialism?

I say those who are not willing to contribute are accomplices quite simply.
Ummmm....couple of issues here.

It's a bit early to accuse people of denialism when not a lick of this jazz has been even tentatively demonstrated.

Let's play pretend, and say you have (Thermal steadies himself) invented time travel into the future. Do you mean to just shoot everyone into the future to deal with problems later, with newer technologies? Perhaps having them propel to a future world where their families and friends are dead? You don't propose backward time travel (yet). And what if you fling them to a postapocalyptic hellscape, with the Toecutter or Immortan Joe making them sex slaves? Still feeling proud of yourself?
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 08:07 AM   #370
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,393
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
So FT can save lives, specially those with cancer, with its time travel into the future and I still see symptoms of denialism?

I say those who are not willing to contribute are accomplices quite simply.
And I say you're taking the piss.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 09:50 AM   #371
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
The concepts of the thought experiment was just fine. The details comes down to people trying to buy time.
<snip>
Your thought experiment omitted at least one, crucial, fact: stars, and presumably fire, are composed of things like atoms, molecules, ions, protons, and electrons (not a complete list).

So any discussion of your thought experiment may include discussion of those constituents. And hence, too, QM and QFT.

From what you wrote in posts in this thread, it seems that you had not considered that. That omission alone made your thought experiment about a magical universe, not the one we live in.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 10:32 AM   #372
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Ummmm....couple of issues here.

It's a bit early to accuse people of denialism when not a lick of this jazz has been even tentatively demonstrated.

Let's play pretend, and say you have (Thermal steadies himself) invented time travel into the future. Do you mean to just shoot everyone into the future to deal with problems later, with newer technologies? Perhaps having them propel to a future world where their families and friends are dead? You don't propose backward time travel (yet). And what if you fling them to a postapocalyptic hellscape, with the Toecutter or Immortan Joe making them sex slaves? Still feeling proud of yourself?
Firstly time travel into the past is impossible; solving the grandfather paradox once and for all.

Secondly there is already people subject to cryonics so I am not reinventing the wheel here.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 10:36 AM   #373
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
As I showed in my examples, the rotation of an object depends only upon the acceleration of the constituent particles of an object with respect to each other and not on any specific reference frame or reference object.
So I'll assume you are not referring to angular acceleration but linear acceleration.

Again, there is no linear acceleration involved if the frame of reference is spinning with the star.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 10:56 AM   #374
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Your thought experiment omitted at least one, crucial, fact: stars, and presumably fire, are composed of things like atoms, molecules, ions, protons, and electrons (not a complete list).

So any discussion of your thought experiment may include discussion of those constituents. And hence, too, QM and QFT.

From what you wrote in posts in this thread, it seems that you had not considered that. That omission alone made your thought experiment about a magical universe, not the one we live in.
Again, the formation of the star is irrelevant but the star is formed with rotating molecules crashing on each other. So the star has neither angular nor linear acceleration because the frame of reference is spinning with the star.

Again, in practice the frame of reference is defined by a field of gravitons emitted by the star.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 11:11 AM   #375
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
So I'll assume you are not referring to angular acceleration but linear acceleration.

Again, there is no linear acceleration involved if the frame of reference is spinning with the star.
Um, sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a great deal of linear acceleration in normal stars.

In fact, it's an inevitable consequence of being composed of a plasma.

For someone who claims to have overthrown 300 years of physics, you seem remarkably ignorant of rather a lot of said physics.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 11:18 AM   #376
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
philippeb8: List my past arguments and the debunking of them.
- I remember you challenged me to match the order of the mass of the nucleus of a galaxy using FT (with no dark matter) and I got it right
- You failed to defend length contraction badly
- You failed to predict the mass increase in the context of GR
- You failed to defend the precise measurement of the time dilation at high velocities

And I'm not going to talk about wormholes, singularities, parallel universes and so on.

Last edited by philippeb8; 10th December 2019 at 11:21 AM.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 11:18 AM   #377
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Wow.

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Again, the formation of the star is irrelevant
Who said anything about "the formation of the star"?

Not me.

Quote:
but the star is formed with rotating molecules crashing on each other. So the star has neither angular nor linear acceleration because the frame of reference is spinning with the star.
Um, you do realize, don't you, that if there is "crashing on each other", then there is certainly acceleration.

You also realize, I hope, that the existence of "molecules" (plural) implies more than one "frame of reference", don't you?

Quote:
Again, in practice the frame of reference is defined by a field of gravitons emitted by the star.
Which is nice. But as "gravitons" are part of philippeb8 physics, not textbook GR or QM, this is moot, right? At least from the perspective of 300 year old physics anyway.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 11:30 AM   #378
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Wow.


Who said anything about "the formation of the star"?

Not me.
Ok then let's forget about it.

Quote:
Um, you do realize, don't you, that if there is "crashing on each other", then there is certainly acceleration.

You also realize, I hope, that the existence of "molecules" (plural) implies more than one "frame of reference", don't you?
Where the most influential frame of reference is defined by the molecules that share the same properties.

Quote:
Which is nice. But as "gravitons" are part of philippeb8 physics, not textbook GR or QM, this is moot, right? At least from the perspective of 300 year old physics anyway.
The concept of gravitons works in all of classical physics, quantum mechanics, unifies all forces but not with GR. Find the error!
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 12:21 PM   #379
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
- I remember you challenged me to match the order of the mass of the nucleus of a galaxy using FT (with no dark matter) and I got it right
- You failed to defend length contraction badly
- You failed to predict the mass increase in the context of GR
- You failed to defend the precise measurement of the time dilation at high velocities

And I'm not going to talk about wormholes, singularities, parallel universes and so on.
Had the roles been reversed, or me trying to defend GR against FT, you guys would have a good time listening to me adding dark matter and dark energy to make GR work correctly. But alas this is not the case.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 12:25 PM   #380
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
<snip>
Where the most influential frame of reference is defined by the molecules that share the same properties.
Huh?

"Most influential", eh? cute.

And in a star where there are very few molecules (relatively speaking), there is a tyranny of a minority?

Why are molecules special?

Quote:
The concept of gravitons works in all of classical physics, quantum mechanics, unifies all forces but not with GR. Find the error!
"Assertion without evidence" would seem to be a pretty big error, wouldn't you say?

Something that seems rather common, in your posts in this thread, right?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 12:28 PM   #381
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Had the roles been reversed, or me trying to defend GR against FT, you guys would have a good time listening to me adding dark matter and dark energy to make GR work correctly. But alas this is not the case.
Had my uncle been born a woman, she'd have been my aunt.

Good thing the rules here are different from those at CQ, eh?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 12:31 PM   #382
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Had my uncle been born a woman, she'd have been my aunt.

Good thing the rules here are different from those at CQ, eh?
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssss!
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 01:13 PM   #383
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,875
Now we're

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Ok then let's forget about it....
getting somewhere!
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 01:19 PM   #384
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,663
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
You also realize, I hope, that the existence of "molecules" (plural) implies more than one "frame of reference", don't you?
Well, I would disagree with JeanTate's claim. There are always going to be infinitely many charts and atlases, which are the general theory of relativity's analogue of the "frames of reference" that are part of the special theory's jargon; even in the special theory, there are always going to be infinitely many frames of reference.

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Where the most influential frame of reference is defined by the molecules that share the same properties.

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Huh?

"Most influential", eh? cute.

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Find the error!

Here, philippeb8's error is rather fundamental: He/she/it doesn't realize there are infinitely many charts and atlases (or frames of reference), all of which are equally valid, regardless of the physical situation they describe, just as there are infinitely many possible maps that show any given patch of the earth's surface.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 02:42 PM   #385
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation A lie about his "thought experiment" and "people trying to buy time"

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
The concepts of the thought experiment was just fine. The details comes down to people trying to buy time.
11 December 2019 philippeb8: A lie about his "thought experiment" and "people trying to buy time".

The problem with his scenario was that it was so vague that people had to either discuss it as written or ask questions to clarify it. So we had a few days of people telling him what real stars were (no "fire", they spin, it is possible to measure that spin, spin fast enough and plasma is ejected) !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 02:44 PM   #386
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Here, philippeb8's error is rather fundamental: He/she/it doesn't realize there are infinitely many charts and atlases (or frames of reference), all of which are equally valid, regardless of the physical situation they describe, just as there are infinitely many possible maps that show any given patch of the earth's surface.
How about summing up the frames of reference?
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 02:48 PM   #387
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation A "FT can save lives" delusion and "symptoms of denialism" lie

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
So FT can save lives....
11 December 2019 philippeb8: A "FT can save lives" delusion and "symptoms of denialism" lie.
He has an ignorant delusion that a flux of gravitons can magically freeze people. A futile attempt to educate him about actual gravitons is not any kind of denialism.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 02:50 PM   #388
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
11 December 2019 philippeb8: A "FT can save lives" delusion and "symptoms of denialism" lie.
He has an ignorant delusion that a flux of gravitons can magically freeze people. A futile attempt to educate him about actual gravitons is not any kind of denialism.
Here we go... Reality Check tossed away scientific evidence again.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 03:00 PM   #389
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation "I remember" fantasies and "I (Reality Check) failed" insanity

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
I remember...
11 December 2019 philippeb8: "I remember" fantasies and "I (Reality Check) failed" insanity.
The insanity is that I have to defend mainstream physics. He has to defend his FT delusions.
He presented a rather deluded calculation of the mass of a Milky Way "bulge".
CQ 2018-Oct-16: Mass of the Bulge of the Milky Way:

CQ 2018 2018-Oct-26: Failed to find Milky Way bulge stars and gas (and dust and black hole) data or even show that your "bulge" is related to the actual bulge data.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 03:04 PM   #390
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Thumbs down "Reality Check tossed away scientific evidence again" lie

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Reality Check tossed away scientific evidence again.
11 December 2019 philippeb8: A "Reality Check tossed away scientific evidence again" lie (he wrote an ignorant delusion).
He presented no scientific evidence to be tossed away. He wrote an ignorant delusion about a flux of gravitons freezing people.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 03:09 PM   #391
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Question Ignorant delusions about the "concept of gravitons" or just gibberish

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
The concept of gravitons works in all of classical physics, quantum mechanics, unifies all forces but not with GR.
11 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant delusions about the "concept of gravitons" or just gibberish?
Gravitons only exist in a theory of quantum gravity.
Gravitons do not exist in classical physics.
Gravitons do not exist in quantum mechanics.
Gravitons are not a unified theory (they are a part of a hypothetical unified theory).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 03:13 PM   #392
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
11 December 2019 philippeb8: "I remember" fantasies and "I (Reality Check) failed" insanity.

The insanity is that I have to defend mainstream physics. He has to defend his FT delusions.

He presented a rather deluded calculation of the mass of a Milky Way "bulge".

CQ 2018-Oct-16: Mass of the Bulge of the Milky Way:



CQ 2018 2018-Oct-26: Failed to find Milky Way bulge stars and gas (and dust and black hole) data or even show that your "bulge" is related to the actual bulge data.


Thank you for confirming 10^10 solar masses is the same order (2e40 kg).

Last edited by philippeb8; 10th December 2019 at 03:18 PM.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 03:26 PM   #393
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation His usual "adding dark matter and dark energy to make GR work correctly" lie

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
...adding dark matter and dark energy to make GR work correctly.
11 December 2019 philippeb8: His usual "adding dark matter and dark energy to make GR work correctly" lie

GR has always contained dark energy as a cosmological constant.
We apply GR to measured data that gives evidence for the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Take a model of the universe that contains X, Y and Z. Fit the model to data and see how much X, Y and Z the model says the universe contains. This is simple enough for a child to understand!
In this case we have the Lambda-CDM model which has baryonic matter X, non-baryonic matter Y and the cosmological constant lambda (Z). We fit the model to the cosmic microwave data from WMAP and Planck missions. We do not get X = 100%, Y = 0%, Z = 0% of the universe ! We get the well known values that agree with other measurements of X, Y, Z.

Tests of general relativity
We have overwhelming evidence that GR works correctly because GR has passed every test that has been done.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th December 2019 at 03:27 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 03:26 PM   #394
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
11 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant delusions about the "concept of gravitons" or just gibberish?

Gravitons only exist in a theory of quantum gravity.

Gravitons do not exist in classical physics.

Gravitons do not exist in quantum mechanics.

Gravitons are not a unified theory (they are a part of a hypothetical unified theory).


Reality Check got an obsession with delusions. Maybe thatís the side effect you get when you work on GR all your life!

Hahaha.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 03:28 PM   #395
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
11 December 2019 philippeb8: His usual "adding dark matter and dark energy to make GR work correctly" lie



GR has always contained dark energy as a cosmological constant.

We apply GR to measured data that gives evidence for the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Take a model of the universe that contains X, Y and Z. Fit the model to data and see how much X, Y and Z the model says the universe contains. This is simple enough for a child to understand!

In this case we have the Lambda-CDM model which has baryonic matter X, non-baryonic matter Y and the cosmological constant lambda (Z). We fit the model to the cosmic microwave data from WMAP and Planck missions. We do not get X = 100%, Y = 0%, Z = 0% of the universe ! We get the well known values that agree with other measurements of X, Y, Z.



Tests of general relativity

We have overwhelming evidence that GR works correctly because GR has passed every test that has been done.


Reality Check silently dismisses all the observations that donít fit your model.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 03:28 PM   #396
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Question Ignorant delusions about the "concept of gravitons" or just gibberish

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
....
Did not address the question: 11 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant delusions about the "concept of gravitons" or just gibberish?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 03:50 PM   #397
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Did not address the question: 11 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant delusions about the "concept of gravitons" or just gibberish?


The fact you donít like gravitons doesnít make them unrealistic.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 03:52 PM   #398
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation A "dismisses all the observations that donít fit your model" lie

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Reality Check silently dismisses all the observations that donít fit your model.
11 December 2019 philippeb8: A "dismisses all the observations that donít fit your model" lie
My 11 December 2019 philippeb8: His usual "adding dark matter and dark energy to make GR work correctly" lie post is about his lie and the fact that GR has passed all of its tests.

The Lambda-CDM model is the best cosmological model that we have because it fits the majority of observations. Rational, knowledgeable people say the dark matter has overwhelming evidence for its existence because there are many lines of independent evidence that dark matters exists and is 85% of the matter in the universe. Rational, knowledgeable people say that dark energy has strong evidence for its existence and is easily explained by a cosmological constant.
Rational, knowledgeable people also know about the issues with the Lambda-CDM model and their probable solutions. For example:
  • Dark energy as a vacuum energy is many orders of magnitudes different from the QM vacuum energy.
    This should stem from the known incompatibility between GR and QM.
  • The Hubble constant tension that we measure that the universe is expanding but cosmological and "local" sets of values are now known to disagree.
    A mundane solution is systematic errors in analyzing the data. There may be new physic involved. An intriguing solution is that the universe is closed as one group have proposed from their analysis of CMB data. However they get a third value of the Hubble constant!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 04:00 PM   #399
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,422
Exclamation A deluded "you donít like gravitons " lie when I have been citing actual gravitons

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
The fact you donít like gravitons doesnít make them unrealistic.
11 December 2019 philippeb8: A deluded "you donít like gravitons " lie when I have been citing actual gravitons .

The delusions has been writing about "gravitons".
11 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant delusions about the "concept of gravitons" or just gibberish?
11 December 2019 philippeb8: A "FT can save lives" delusion and "symptoms of denialism" lie.
10 December 2019 philippeb8: An ignorant fantasy that gravitons can produce "perfect cryonics"!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2019, 04:00 PM   #400
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
11 December 2019 philippeb8: A "dismisses all the observations that donít fit your model" lie

My 11 December 2019 philippeb8: His usual "adding dark matter and dark energy to make GR work correctly" lie post is about his lie and the fact that GR has passed all of its tests.



The Lambda-CDM model is the best cosmological model that we have because it fits the majority of observations. Rational, knowledgeable people say the dark matter has overwhelming evidence for its existence because there are many lines of independent evidence that dark matters exists and is 85% of the matter in the universe. Rational, knowledgeable people say that dark energy has strong evidence for its existence and is easily explained by a cosmological constant.

Rational, knowledgeable people also know about the issues with the Lambda-CDM model and their probable solutions. For example:
  • Dark energy as a vacuum energy is many orders of magnitudes different from the QM vacuum energy.

    This should stem from the known incompatibility between GR and QM.
  • The Hubble constant tension that we measure that the universe is expanding but cosmological and "local" sets of values are now known to disagree.

    A mundane solution is systematic errors in analyzing the data. There may be new physic involved. An intriguing solution is that the universe is closed as one group have proposed from their analysis of CMB data. However they get a third value of the Hubble constant!


- I just posted a recent article saying the expansion of the universe donít fit GR.

- Also I just recalled the laws of the conservation of the energy are not even respected at the cosmological scale according to GR!

- You canít even explain where dark energy is coming from?

Last edited by philippeb8; 10th December 2019 at 04:03 PM.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.