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 7th August 2012, 08:39 AM   #161
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,865
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
No, I didn't say (or at least didn't mean) that scientists reject new theories. It's the lock-in into possibly false theories I see as the danger. What if Einstein's relativity is a hoax? And mainstream science just keeps on going down the wrong path!?
Science follows the evidence. If the evidence contradicts the theory then the theory is wrong. It's that simple. There is not a single piece of evidence that contradicts relativity.

Oh, and by the way, relativity has moved on a lot since Einstein. It's kind of like "Darwinian evolution" - modern evolutionary theory has very little to do with Darwin, except that he was the first to write down the basic underlying concept.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery 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 7th August 2012, 08:40 AM   #162
paiute
Graduate Poster
 
paiute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,343
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
What if Einstein's relativity is a hoax? And mainstream science just keeps on going down the wrong path!?
...and I'm out.
__________________
A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine
Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong?
Now free for download!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine
paiute 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 7th August 2012, 08:41 AM   #163
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
Word salad, you have to describe the mechanism that does this. If current atomic theory was wrong, nuclear reactors would not work.
Here is one possible principle: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=78
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 08:43 AM   #164
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
Science follows the evidence. If the evidence contradicts the theory then the theory is wrong. It's that simple. There is not a single piece of evidence that contradicts relativity.

Oh, and by the way, relativity has moved on a lot since Einstein. It's kind of like "Darwinian evolution" - modern evolutionary theory has very little to do with Darwin, except that he was the first to write down the basic underlying concept.
This is off topic, but I suspect scientific experiments confirming Einstein's relativity have been faked and published in respectable scientific journals as if they were genuine results.
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 08:45 AM   #165
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
No, I didn't say (or at least didn't mean) that scientists reject new theories. It's the lock-in into possibly false theories I see as the danger. What if Einstein's relativity is a hoax? And mainstream science just keeps on going down the wrong path!?
if it's a hoax, then the ways in which it is a hoax will become apparent as we discover more about the nature of the universe. If it's a hoax, then it's a hoax that is a remarkably good fit to the universe as we currently observe it, and made predictions that paid off awfully well decades later. If it's a hoax, then it's a hoax that gives accurate enough approximations that it allows GPS to work.

Bloody good hoax, if you ask me.
Lamuella 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 7th August 2012, 08:46 AM   #166
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Neither a nor b. I would be interested in hearing about what I was wrong about. At least I would start from an unbiased position and listen to it.
out of curiosity, which subject did you choose to think about?
Lamuella 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 7th August 2012, 08:47 AM   #167
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
If the sun were a quasar we'd already be dead and most of the planets would have been destroyed.

If the sun were a black hole it would look like a distorted mess of blackness with the stars behind it looking like they're in all the wrong places.
The sun is obviously not a quasar, but the basic principle could be the same. And no, a black hole inside the sun would not pull in the planets. The sun would still have the same mass. The black hole would be tiny though and be inside the sun, so that's perhaps a bit too far-fetched idea, but anyway.
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 08:47 AM   #168
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Drawing a photon from vacuum does not in anyway account for elements beyond helium existing in the universe today. If your argument has any weight we would see remarkably similar chemical make up of stars across the universe. We dont
MG1962 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 7th August 2012, 08:48 AM   #169
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Lamuella View Post
out of curiosity, which subject did you choose to think about?
The Internet.
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 08:50 AM   #170
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
This is off topic, but I suspect scientific experiments confirming Einstein's relativity have been faked and published in respectable scientific journals as if they were genuine results.
Oh god...

This is why nobody is taking you seriously.

If such articles were faked on a large enough scale to make it look like relativity was accurate when it was not, then the faking of relativity would be both the largest scientific fraud ever committed, and a scientific enterprise larger and more elaborate than the space race.

The GPS in the smartphone that every other person has in their pocket would not work if the predictions of general and special relativity were not very very accurate.
Lamuella 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 7th August 2012, 08:50 AM   #171
uvar
Critical Thinker
 
uvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Where I am
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The Internet.
You don't happen to mean the World Wide Web, do you?
uvar 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 7th August 2012, 08:51 AM   #172
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
Drawing a photon from vacuum does not in anyway account for elements beyond helium existing in the universe today. If your argument has any weight we would see remarkably similar chemical make up of stars across the universe. We dont
Yikes! Yes, the spectrum of radiation from the stars should be very similar, at least for stars with similar mass.

Do stars of similar mass show different chemical makeup?
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 08:52 AM   #173
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The Internet.
I refuse to believe you know very much about the Internet. Explain who Tim Berners-Lee is without looking him up.
Lamuella 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 7th August 2012, 08:53 AM   #174
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Yikes! Yes, the spectrum of radiation from the stars should be very similar, at least for stars with similar mass.

Do stars of similar mass show different chemical makeup?
Yes
MG1962 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 7th August 2012, 08:54 AM   #175
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by uvar View Post
You don't happen to mean the World Wide Web, do you?
Yes, invented by a person at CERN.
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 08:54 AM   #176
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,865
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
This is off topic, but I suspect scientific experiments confirming Einstein's relativity have been faked and published in respectable scientific journals as if they were genuine results.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery 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 7th August 2012, 08:55 AM   #177
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The point yes, but what is the situation in reality?
That is the situation in reality.

Quote:
What if some gatekeeper scientists (in what Richard Dolan calls the breakaway civilization) hide the real science (in black op projects etc) and give the public community false science to chew on endlessly?
It would be blindingly obvious, because there are countless millions of people who understand real science. It's not magic. You can't hide it.

Relativity? Built right into GPS, that a billion people use every day. Quantum mechanics? Built into every computer in the world, every cell phone and television.

If those theories weren't accurate, we'd know. Not just scientists, but everyone who lives in the modern technological world.

To suggest that it's even possible that Einstein's work is a "hoax" is both staggeringly ignorant and breathtakingly arrogant.

Good day, sir.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa 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 7th August 2012, 08:55 AM   #178
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
Yes
Oh, darn. That falsifies my hypothesis I guess. I will check it though, just to be sure you are correct.
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 08:57 AM   #179
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The point yes, but what is the situation in reality? What if some gatekeeper scientists (in what Richard Dolan calls the breakaway civilization) hide the real science (in black op projects etc) and give the public community false science to chew on endlessly?

Knowledge is power, and if a group can mislead the public community to pursue false science in key areas the group can maintain and keep great power to themselves.

The Conspiracy Theories section is thataway -->.
GeeMack 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 7th August 2012, 08:57 AM   #180
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,865
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Oh, darn. That falsifies my hypothesis I guess. I will check it though, just to be sure you are correct.
But how will you check?

If the "gatekeeper scientists" have been publishing false data then how do you know which data you can trust?

Seriously.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery 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 7th August 2012, 08:57 AM   #181
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Yikes! Yes, the spectrum of radiation from the stars should be very similar, at least for stars with similar mass.

Do stars of similar mass show different chemical makeup?
Yes. A white dwarf or neutron star can have the same mass as a main sequence star, but a completely different composition.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa 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 7th August 2012, 08:58 AM   #182
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Oh, darn. That falsifies my hypothesis I guess. I will check it though, just to be sure you are correct.
Yes the information is easily accessible on the internet. Look for the terms population I and population II stars. Also using metalicty as a search term will produce results
MG1962 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 7th August 2012, 09:01 AM   #183
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
This is off topic, but I suspect scientific experiments confirming Einstein's relativity have been faked and published in respectable scientific journals as if they were genuine results.
If you have any proof of specific fraud please inform the publisher of a reputable scientific journal, or provide one of us the evidence and we will inform the publisher. Fraud is the single most serious accusation you can level against a scientist, as far as their career goes (as far as their personal life goes, obviously there are a lot worse--but for your career it's better to commit murder than fraud).

If you DON'T have any such evidence, this accusation is libel. I'm not a physicist, so I'm not going to demand a retraction; however, any decent human being would appologize immediately for such a remark if they could not produce evidence.

Quote:
And no, a black hole inside the sun would not pull in the planets. The sun would still have the same mass.
Right--but you're ignoring the mass of all that glowy stuff around it that you keep saying is giving off the light. If the black hole were the mass of the Sun the system would have a greater mass than the Sun (Y+X>Y or X, as long as Y and X are positive). If the black hole is less massive than the Sun and the glowy stuff makes up the difference, you need to show the math for how big that black hole is (my gut feeling is that it's too small to be a significant portion of the system).
Dinwar 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 7th August 2012, 09:02 AM   #184
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
Yes
Ha! I found supergiant stars with the same kind of spectra: http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso9920d/

Ok, the article says they show different chemical compositions, but they look similar enough to me. What they call difference looks more like noise to me.
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 09:03 AM   #185
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
But how will you check?

If the "gatekeeper scientists" have been publishing false data then how do you know which data you can trust?

Seriously.
He could always check with the free energy guys. I'm pretty sure they're on his wavelength, Kenneth.........
fuelair 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 7th August 2012, 09:04 AM   #186
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
But how will you check?

If the "gatekeeper scientists" have been publishing false data then how do you know which data you can trust?

Seriously.
Well I observe these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_star and report my observations to the AAVSO. Neither I nor the organisation are professional astronomers. So I am validating information with no input from "Professional gate keepers" Yet I am producing the same range of results.
MG1962 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 7th August 2012, 09:05 AM   #187
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Ha! I found supergiant stars with the same kind of spectra: http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso9920d/

Ok, the article says they show different chemical compositions, but they look similar enough to me. What they call difference looks more like noise to me.
I just read your link - why did you leave out a lower content of heavy elements (or "metallicity") — than what is observed in our Galaxy. This immediately shows the hole in your theory. Because why dont the stars in Barnards galaxy show the same composition as similar stars in our own galaxy.

Last edited by MG1962; 7th August 2012 at 09:09 AM.
MG1962 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 7th August 2012, 09:10 AM   #188
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,965
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Ha! I found supergiant stars with the same kind of spectra: http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso9920d/

Ok, the article says they show different chemical compositions, but they look similar enough to me. What they call difference looks more like noise to me.
And you know what regarding spectral analysis?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote 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 7th August 2012, 09:12 AM   #189
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,865
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Ha! I found supergiant stars with the same kind of spectra: http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso9920d/

Ok, the article says they show different chemical compositions, but they look similar enough to me. What they call difference looks more like noise to me.
Umm, no, the caption says that the star in NGC6822 has an almost identical spectrum to the other stars shown, which are in the Small Magellanic Cloud, making NGC6822 different from the Milky Way. No Milky Way star is shown for comparison.

Were you planning on doing some proper research?
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery 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 7th August 2012, 09:12 AM   #190
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
Yes the information is easily accessible on the internet. Look for the terms population I and population II stars. Also using metalicty as a search term will produce results
But population II stars are small stars!

"they have masses less than or equal to 0.8 solar masses" -- http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s9.htm

So naturally they should have less heavy elements, because of their smaller gravitational pull on the vacuum.
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 09:13 AM   #191
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
And you know what regarding spectral analysis?
The differences are small, but thats what we expected to see, because the stars shown there are from small under developed galaxies. If we found lots of metal stars I would be worried.

The thing is for his theory to work, they should be identical, which clearly they are not
MG1962 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 7th August 2012, 09:13 AM   #192
uvar
Critical Thinker
 
uvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Where I am
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
Because why dont the stars in Barnards galaxy show the same composition as similar stars in our own galaxy.
Obviously, the quasar shells around the black holes in their stars have reversed polarity.
uvar 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 7th August 2012, 09:13 AM   #193
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,457
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
With the risk of making a complete fool of myself, I'm wondering if the sun could be a black hole? I did some searches on the web but all I could find was questions about if the sun will become a black hole.

The so-called Hawking radiation predicts that black holes radiate energy. If the sun is a black hole, how much energy would it generate, given that the mass of the sun is much larger than predicted by the standard models?

The mass of the sun as a black hole can be calculated from its diameter.
No it isn't, no it won't become one. I don't know what kind of search you made to reach that conclusion.
__________________
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 7th August 2012, 09:14 AM   #194
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
But population II stars are small stars!

"they have masses less than or equal to 0.8 solar masses" -- http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s9.htm

So naturally they should have less heavy elements, because of their smaller gravitational pull on the vacuum.
Because these are the only ones still alive, all their big brothers have gone to the great inter-stellar graveyard in the sky.
MG1962 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 7th August 2012, 09:16 AM   #195
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,865
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
But population II stars are small stars!

"they have masses less than or equal to 0.8 solar masses" -- http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s9.htm

So naturally they should have less heavy elements, because of their smaller gravitational pull on the vacuum.
There are plenty of population I stars with masses below 0.8 Solar masses.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery 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 7th August 2012, 09:17 AM   #196
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,457
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
This is off topic, but I suspect scientific experiments confirming Einstein's relativity have been faked and published in respectable scientific journals as if they were genuine results.
Why do you think so ? Not really that much off topic.
__________________
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 7th August 2012, 09:17 AM   #197
GeneMachine
Critical Thinker
 
GeneMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 332
By the many tentacles of the Old Ones, I am off for 1,5 hours for shopping and this explodes from a singularity of silly into a universe of full blown madness? Relativity faked, as in all-out conspiracy between all scientists for a century now? I think I shall leave this thread, lest the gibbering madness take me. I am too new to this...
GeneMachine 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 7th August 2012, 09:17 AM   #198
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by uvar View Post
Obviously, the quasar shells around the black holes in their stars have reversed polarity.
However would not the scale of interactions between the dohickies and the thingamajigs affect this?
MG1962 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 7th August 2012, 09:17 AM   #199
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
Umm, no, the caption says that the star in NGC6822 has an almost identical spectrum to the other stars shown, which are in the Small Magellanic Cloud, making NGC6822 different from the Milky Way. No Milky Way star is shown for comparison.

Were you planning on doing some proper research?
Oh, NGC 6822 is a galaxy, not a star.

"This confirms the earlier finding that NGC 6822 has a different chemical composition — a lower content of heavy elements (or "metallicity") — than what is observed in our Galaxy."

I thought it was a supergiant star.
Anders Lindman 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 7th August 2012, 09:18 AM   #200
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,965
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
So naturally they should have less heavy elements, because of their smaller gravitational pull on the vacuum.
I just face-palmed so hard I nearly broke my glasses. You clearly lack even a rudimentary understanding of stellar evolution.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote 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 05:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.