Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Astrophysics

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >
1
Science & Alternative Science / He dispoved all Science?
« on: November 11, 2019, 01:08:25 PM »
Have they ever tried to detect Dark Energy particles? And do they still try to detect Dark Matter particles? Why?
They look for particles (matter) in gravitational Dark Matter anomaly, because it puts in danger the founder of modern Science - sir Isaac Newton. Violating the Newton in his area of applicability, one disproves the Einstein as well. So, they need to find the particles of Dark Energy as badly. My fix to this is to put "by hand" a non-universal mathematical modifications into the Physics. And the mathematics as well, because math was invented from observations of nature. Being just math, these "virtual terms" can not be directly detected, however their impact on nature (Dark Matter makes the spacetime curved) is seen.

All this is in Manuscript, which one gets from amidalitram@mail.ru , and includes many topics, including Time Travel, the first photo of Black Hole (please google the NEWS), and ET aliens.

It is not the death of science, but revolution. The take over the Newton.

2
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Just three bullets?
« on: December 04, 2018, 04:42:48 AM »
the bullets could be considered subject to the "force of gravitation" which is balanced by the "centripetal acceleration" from the curve of the orbit.

But, I have a question for you: Do you accept Newton Laws and/or Einstein's General Relativity as being at least locally correct?
It is indifferent what I am and what I think: I am facing the Absolute Truth (He is beutiful!). But I have papers in European P J B and Physical Review.

The Newton First Law speakes about forces, not about (fictional) inertial forces. Thus, for Newton free falling cabin of spaceship has no inertial frame in it. But reread my post, I have changed it drastically.

3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Just three bullets?
« on: December 03, 2018, 01:56:04 PM »
All you have done is to make baseless claims that to me seemed quite incorrect then refused to answer my requests for elucidation.
So either you back up your claims or we're done.
Is gravity a force? Newton - yes, Einstein - no.
I'm waiting for your answers to my questions!

But as to: "Is gravity a force? Newton - yes, Einstein - no."
Not quite there is no real difference in the end result under low velocity (<< c) and low mass (even near the sun the deviation is almost immeasurably small).
And the reason for that is because Einstein, having noted that "Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system", designed GR that way.
You know the subjects very well. What are your questions? If gravity is a force, then bullets are not free. Therefore, they are not subject to Newton first law. Do you follow?

4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Just three bullets?
« on: December 03, 2018, 10:26:25 AM »
All you have done is to make baseless claims that to me seemed quite incorrect then refused to answer my requests for elucidation.
So either you back up your claims or we're done.
Is gravity a force? Newton - yes, Einstein - no.

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Just three bullets?
« on: December 03, 2018, 09:34:38 AM »
As pointed out above, there is absolutely no need for any "Dark Matter" or "Dark Force" to turn "the axis of the Earth towards the North Star."

All that is needed to keep the axis of the earth's pointing in the same direction is conservation of angular momentum.
Any applied torque will cause a precession of that direction and that slow precession is the cause of the "precession of the equinoxes".
"Hipparchus is credited with discovering precession of the equinoxes".
I can not add to mine arguments. You have your opinion, and I - mine. Mine opinion is sent to EPJC for peer-review. We will see the result.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Just three bullets?
« on: December 03, 2018, 05:56:44 AM »
Popper's idea is that the theories of science have to be "falsifiable".
They will, however, remain "theories of science" until they are falsified and will then have their range of applicability limited and/or be replaced by a better theory.
One hundred percent sure, comrade. :-) Officials cirtainly clean the mess they are creating. LOL:
John P.A. Ioannidis, ``Why Most Published Research Findings Are False''. PLoS Medicine.  2: e124, 2005.


7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Just three bullets?
« on: December 03, 2018, 05:37:58 AM »
I don’t know what this “Dark Force” you refer to is. Can you link to anything describing it?
It is term in my own unpublished yet research. Noh, indeed: Wikipedia says, that there is Dark Matter. But with matter (tables, insects, flowers) comes force, which drives and changes it.

8
The unshakable method of science sounds like "Science is refutable." Details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Same thing: "Science is possible to refute." Why then not to take opportunity? It is just like possibility of opening the can of fish. It is possible to open can, why then not?! "The theory is Scientific, if it can be shown, that theory is wrong." Why nobody is laughing at this Popper's idea?
Perhaps theory is Science, if it can be rather proven or at least confirmed several times? The Popper's idea is not the same as saying "Possibly, the Science is refutable." Latter rejects the Popper as established, unshakable method of Science.

More: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78569.0

9
........ You even have the right to reject certain reviewers in advance. It's a tough process. I know it from both sides.     
How many reviewers would you left, if you are allowed to take them solely from the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah?  :D

10
The real showstopper is that he's way too prolific, claiming solutions for all of the world's problems in the span of 2 years.
Most of my day I am improving my brain circuits. So, perhaps I am indeed, a bit smarter.

11
In most cases of rejection the decision over a manuscript makes only one person: an editor. He might get it all wrong, correct? It is not objective decision.
Physical Review D has nine editors, as well as an appeals system if they get something wrong.
Quote
I guess, even Newton was not immidiately accepted: his book "Principia" waited many long years in the library for its first reader.
[citation needed]
No way I ever get pass the bot in PRD! The programm demands affiliation with Institution. But I lost mine! I told Tartu University colleagues about Jesus!

12
...... moved to Complete Nonsense.

Warned.
So, again the author of Physical Review has produced complete nonsense and was warned by a man without record in Physical Review.
What the heck is this Physical Review stuff? I've certainly never heard of it.
https://www.etis.ee/CV/Dmitri_Martila/eng?tabId=CV_ENG
According to this, you've published 3 papers in Physical Review E, and one in the European Physical Journal B. Neither deals with cosmology or quantum physics, so I'm not sure how you can credibly make arguments based on those.

However, I concede that you have actual academic experience, so I'll give you a chance: if you can get a paper accepted in Physical Review D, the one that deals with cosmology, I'll start taking you seriously.
In most cases of rejection the decision over a manuscript makes only one person: an editor. He might get it all wrong, correct? It is not objective decision. I guess, even Newton was not immidiately accepted: his book "Principia" waited many long years in the library for its first reader.

13
...... moved to Complete Nonsense.

Warned.
So, again the author of Physical Review has produced complete nonsense and was warned by a man without record in Physical Review.
What the heck is this Physical Review stuff? I've certainly never heard of it.
https://www.etis.ee/CV/Dmitri_Martila/est?tabId=CV_ENG

14
...... moved to Complete Nonsense.

Warned.
So, again the author of Physical Review has produced complete nonsense and was warned by a man without record in Physical Review.

15
What are you even talking about? I described the cat as a joke on vacuous truth, not as anything serious, notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary-General of the UN does not work in the Oval Office.

What does peer review have to do with nihilism? It's just a mechanism for ensuring that junk doesn't get published and important people don't waste their time reading it. How in the world is peer review a force against truth? This sounds like nonsense to me.

You may think that your theories hypotheses are sound, but they're nonsense to anyone who's an actual expert in the field, who have brought forth things like lasers, while you have only brought forth some poorly-written drivel.
Let us talk next time in afterlife. My Jesus loves the truth, and He is with me.

16
.......... If you've written scientific papers published in a reputable journal, my non-existent cat is the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

I don't even know what the blob you posted in reply is supposed to even argue or mean.
\end{document}
If your cat were in oval office, no war ever would have been started. Correct? There is problem with peer-review: it has huge "human factor" in it. If a theory is sound and solid, but is hurtful for many people, it is being rejected. The humans in the peer-review are almost all - nihilists, it means: truth haters.

17
Time for you to study mathematics and physics. Math can't prove violation of conservation laws. Only experimentation can, and virtually no experiments have suggested it. Typically, the most ignorant on physics and mathematics also claim to know the most and make sweeping claims. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect.

\section{The war with rude opponents, or Love your enemy, says Jesus}

Opponent on scientific forum:
- Thank you for your research, I laughed at this.

Me:
- Why to laugh? Are we in circus?! No. Thus, I ask for huge amount of respect. Moreover: you are human, I am human. Why am I defected human, but you are not?!

Opponent:
- One does not ask for respect. One earns it. Imho you are not a defect human being. You are just a human being, nothing more, nothing less.

- If I am not defected human, then I am respected one. Correct? German: "Ich bin nicht der Untermensh!" The Presumption of Innocence: everybody is like the God (and, thus, must be treated as like you would treat the God right from beginning), until opposite is proven. Not ``respect must be earned'', but the disrespect ``must be'' earned.

- No. The default position is neutral; neither respect nor disrespect. I would treat no one like a god, no one deserves to be treated like that fictitious evil piece of shit.

- You are not neutral. Being neutral with stranger means to be respectful with 100 percent (otherwise the stranger will sue you). You have said word "shit" in relation to my Religion. It is not being neutral. It is part of WW3 war, and you are on the evil side.

What? No mistakes in General Relativity, because it is tested (like by the project ``Gravity Probe B'')?! Have you heard of Nihilism? The Nihilism is philosophy of deliberate lie. For example, a nihilist knows, that $2+2=4$, but says: $2+2=7$. Some one of Conspiracy Theories is right. The atheism is expression of Nihilism. Hasn't it Mister Donald Trump explained what ``fake news" are? Therefore, even reading a Physical Review paper, use your own brain.

Opponent: ``Looks like some failed scientist are trying to misuse ResearchGate to spread their weird ideas.''. I would fail only, if I will arrive at hell. Russians never surrender (``Fight like you've never fought before -- First Knight'' YouTube).
Without extensive support of Flat Earth Community (I would turn for support to the Creation Science Society and the UFO--Alien Research Society with my Light Force as well, I would never stop) I can not make the paper fairly peer-reviewed. Without such review it fails the Scientific Method.
Opponent: ``So basically what you are trying to say is it’s all just pie in the sky wishful thinking, or nonesense, take your pick.''
It is if you prefer negativism. I prefer positivism, thus I am saying: it is output of my brain, and my conscience is in piece with it. I think, that on this dirty world the results will not be (fairly) peer-reviewed. But I hope for the investigation in afterlife.

Do not call names (like ``idiot'') your brother -- me. All humans are blood relatives (look up in Wikipedia: Mitochondrial Eve and Adam.) So, by destroying me, you are destroying yourself. Self-destruction is sin.
Do not be rude. I am a respectful one with papers in Physical Review E, European Journal of Physics B, etc. Opponent: ``Your last regular paper is from 2006, the others are from 2001-2003. Everything after that is going more and more into the direction of complete nonsense. I'm not rude, whatever reputation you once had, you destroyed it by yourself.'' Because in General Relativity the Universe is 4 dimensional, one can not destroy anything inside the Universe. My top academic activity (the glorious activity!) is in the 2006, 2001-2003 (``Frank Sinatra -- New York, New York'' YouTube).

18
Flat earth can't even explain the motion of planets or how the sun is held above the earth... Good on you for "reaching for the stars" but I think dark matter is a bit beyond you (and me)
Have you red the file I have linked to? There is section called "Synge argument explains the Dark Matter and Dark Energy". If you have found a mistake in calculation or formulas, then please say.

Did you actually read my post or did you copy-paste it?

So, what do YOU think Kaku's point is?
He said it himself: "By rights we should not be here. By rights we should have been disintegrated in the moment of Big Bang." The atheism is the self-denial. His point is self-denial.

So what is the flat earth model explanation for dark matter, or neutrino oscillations, or anything else? What's the math behind the motion of the planets in your model? Because the math on the Academic Science side is pretty solid.

I have the according mathematics in the link in the thread (it leads to the file violationLaws in Researchgate). The math in the file proves the existence of new force field (it might be called Dark Force, but there is nothing demonic about it). And the math proves the violation of the conservation laws (including energy violation). All this is in favour of the Flat Earth Society, because without conservation laws any model of Reality is safe and sound.

19
................
You're really misunderstanding the point that Kaku was making. He is referring to the antimatter asymmetry problem, or the paradox that, although experiments show that antimatter is created in 50:50 proportions to normal matter, the observable universe has almost no observable antimatter.

Once again, knowledge of the history of the universe has nothing to do with knowledge of the Earth's shape.
Do not hypnotise me. I know, that "He is referring to the antimatter asymmetry problem, or the paradox that, although experiments show that antimatter is created in 50:50 proportions to normal matter, the observable universe has almost no observable antimatter." But I am not "really misunderstanding the point that Kaku was making.".

20
Would Dr. M.Kaku say in public, that the Reality can be described by the Flat Earth Model?
No, because it can't be described by the flat Earth model.

And again, our lack of understanding of the universe's history has nothing to do with our actual understanding of Earth's shape.
Follow the hands:
1. If Earth is flat, then only God could have made it.
2. Because the God exists in Flat Earth Model, then the Universe must exists.
3. Dr. Kaku says, that Earth is round, and it should not exists.

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >