| 30-04-2017 22:49 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Wake wrote:
What you have to be careful of, is using textbook answers and descriptions of the real universe and the actual reality.
I would say that you have to be careful to not make shit up, and keep to the textbooks. Why, why, why, do you think that the most proven, studied and applied theories that exist, should be disregarded? And we should accept that you make shit up instead?
The theory of thermal physics and radiating bodies, is THE consensus of all consensuses there is. 100%. First place. You are in last place.
Simply because at the moment a lot of the newer textbooks contain the AGW theory as proven fact. |
| 01-05-2017 04:38 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
There certainly is no consensus among the respondents to this blog. How can the IPCC claim a 97% consensus among climate scientists on AGW? Was the polling flawed by improper questions? Was there no poll after all?
Or are we respondents debating over science that is, after all, settled? |
| 01-05-2017 15:32 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Frescomexico wrote:
There certainly is no consensus among the respondents to this blog. How can the IPCC claim a 97% consensus among climate scientists on AGW? Was the polling flawed by improper questions? Was there no poll after all?
Or are we respondents debating over science that is, after all, settled?
Yes because self selecting people on an unmoderated forum represents something,
Next it's off to the Loch Ness monster forum to find out if the Loch Ness monster actually exists
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 01-05-2017 18:22 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
There certainly is no consensus among the respondents to this blog. How can the IPCC claim a 97% consensus among climate scientists on AGW? Was the polling flawed by improper questions? Was there no poll after all?
Or are we respondents debating over science that is, after all, settled?
Yes because self selecting people on an unmoderated forum represents something,
Next it's off to the Loch Ness monster forum to find out if the Loch Ness monster actually exists
And yet more tears from one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I guess you have nothing to look forward to but a fiery eternity. |
| 01-05-2017 21:54 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
Wake wrote: And yet more tears from one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I guess you have nothing to look forward to but a fiery eternity.
Properly announced here & repeated from other threads:
///////
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB is dead..... long live FAB !!!
A mid-Siberian cold front that developed between two warm Siberian fronts, strengthened & sent a fairly narrow cold band directly to the North Pole. Simultaneously, the cold front that has been a long-time Canadian resident due to cold upwelling Northeastern Pacific Ocean waters that sent cold air into Canada, made stronger incursions into the High Arctic. Despite normal increasing warmth due to ever increasing direct solar radiation at this time of year, FAB could not stay ahead of the average High Arctic temperature curve.
FAB existed for a powerful 230+ days(almost 235 days?), an extreme presentation of the extreme AGW warming occurring in the High Arctic, which is an extreme reflection of general AGW Earth warming, due to increasing man-made non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs AND their feedbacks AND AGW controlled phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor AND its feedbacks.
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB is dead..... long live FAB !!! |
|
| 01-05-2017 22:52 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
Frescomexico wrote:
There certainly is no consensus among the respondents to this blog. How can the IPCC claim a 97% consensus among climate scientists on AGW? Was the polling flawed by improper questions? Was there no poll after all?
Or are we respondents debating over science that is, after all, settled?
Science is never settled. Consensus is not used in science.
The IPCC claim is bogus reasoning. There is no such thing as a climate 'scientist', since climate 'scientsts' do not use or create any science. They are nothing more than Priests of the Church of Global Warming.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 01-05-2017 23:40 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
There certainly is no consensus among the respondents to this blog. How can the IPCC claim a 97% consensus among climate scientists on AGW? Was the polling flawed by improper questions? Was there no poll after all?
Or are we respondents debating over science that is, after all, settled?
Science is never settled. Consensus is not used in science.
The IPCC claim is bogus reasoning. There is no such thing as a climate 'scientist', since climate 'scientsts' do not use or create any science. They are nothing more than Priests of the Church of Global Warming.
The 97% figure has nothing to do with the IPCC. It comes from this 2013 paper by Cook et al:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
and it refers to the number of surveyed papers on climate change and global warming with abstracts endorsing the consensus position that humans are causing global warming as a percentage of those expressing a position either way. |
| 02-05-2017 00:09 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
There certainly is no consensus among the respondents to this blog. How can the IPCC claim a 97% consensus among climate scientists on AGW? Was the polling flawed by improper questions? Was there no poll after all?
Or are we respondents debating over science that is, after all, settled?
Science is never settled. Consensus is not used in science.
The IPCC claim is bogus reasoning. There is no such thing as a climate 'scientist', since climate 'scientists' do not use or create any science. They are nothing more than Priests of the Church of Global Warming.
The 97% figure has nothing to do with the IPCC. It comes from this 2013 paper by Cook et al:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
and it refers to the number of surveyed papers on climate change and global warming with abstracts endorsing the consensus position that humans are causing global warming as a percentage of those expressing a position either way.
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
Several scientists included in the "pro" area have expressed the fact that they were totally misrepresented only to make numbers. |
| 02-05-2017 01:21 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
There certainly is no consensus among the respondents to this blog. How can the IPCC claim a 97% consensus among climate scientists on AGW? Was the polling flawed by improper questions? Was there no poll after all?
Or are we respondents debating over science that is, after all, settled?
Science is never settled. Consensus is not used in science.
The IPCC claim is bogus reasoning. There is no such thing as a climate 'scientist', since climate 'scientsts' do not use or create any science. They are nothing more than Priests of the Church of Global Warming.
The 97% figure has nothing to do with the IPCC. It comes from this 2013 paper by Cook et al:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
and it refers to the number of surveyed papers on climate change and global warming with abstracts endorsing the consensus position that humans are causing global warming as a percentage of those expressing a position either way.
Why are you continuing an argument from randU???
Science doesn't use consensus. The 97% figure is meaningless (and manufactured data as well).
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-05-2017 01:32 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
There certainly is no consensus among the respondents to this blog. How can the IPCC claim a 97% consensus among climate scientists on AGW? Was the polling flawed by improper questions? Was there no poll after all?
Or are we respondents debating over science that is, after all, settled?
Science is never settled. Consensus is not used in science.
The IPCC claim is bogus reasoning. There is no such thing as a climate 'scientist', since climate 'scientists' do not use or create any science. They are nothing more than Priests of the Church of Global Warming.
The 97% figure has nothing to do with the IPCC. It comes from this 2013 paper by Cook et al:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
and it refers to the number of surveyed papers on climate change and global warming with abstracts endorsing the consensus position that humans are causing global warming as a percentage of those expressing a position either way.
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
Several scientists included in the "pro" area have expressed the fact that they were totally misrepresented only to make numbers.
Which scientists have claimed they were misrepresented? |
| 02-05-2017 04:56 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote: Which scientists have claimed they were misrepresented?
Just out of curiosity why didn't you simply look it up? There are multitudes.
But your religion brooks no disagreement. All non-believers must die.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
And you wonder why people find you and your kind sickening. |
| 02-05-2017 10:28 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Which scientists have claimed they were misrepresented?
Just out of curiosity why didn't you simply look it up? There are multitudes.
But your religion brooks no disagreement. All non-believers must die.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
And you wonder why people find you and your kind sickening.
So, after going through the survey with a fine-tooth comb, the sceptics were able to find a grand total of 8 misclassified papers (out of 11944). By my calculations, this changes the figure from 97.1% to 97.0%. This is rounding error territory.
And you wonder why people find you and your kind so dumb?
Edited on 02-05-2017 10:29 |
| 02-05-2017 16:36 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Which scientists have claimed they were misrepresented?
Just out of curiosity why didn't you simply look it up? There are multitudes.
But your religion brooks no disagreement. All non-believers must die.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
And you wonder why people find you and your kind sickening.
So, after going through the survey with a fine-tooth comb, the sceptics were able to find a grand total of 8 misclassified papers (out of 11944). By my calculations, this changes the figure from 97.1% to 97.0%. This is rounding error territory.
And you wonder why people find you and your kind so dumb?
So going through your vast storehouse of knowledge you are telling us that the rest absolutely agreed with Cook. And you wonder why the entire science program is being cut out of the next budget.
Edited on 02-05-2017 17:07 |
| 02-05-2017 23:57 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Which scientists have claimed they were misrepresented?
Just out of curiosity why didn't you simply look it up? There are multitudes.
But your religion brooks no disagreement. All non-believers must die.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
And you wonder why people find you and your kind sickening.
So, after going through the survey with a fine-tooth comb, the sceptics were able to find a grand total of 8 misclassified papers (out of 11944). By my calculations, this changes the figure from 97.1% to 97.0%. This is rounding error territory.
And you wonder why people find you and your kind so dumb?
1) WHO went through it with a fine toothed comb? Cook? Some nameless 'skeptics' that might actually be Cook lying through his teeth again?
2) Climate 'scientists' aren't scientists. They haven't used science in years. They have created no science. They are Priests of the Church of Global Warming.
3) Consensus is not used in science. Cook's "study" means nothing.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 03-05-2017 00:08 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Which scientists have claimed they were misrepresented?
Just out of curiosity why didn't you simply look it up? There are multitudes.
But your religion brooks no disagreement. All non-believers must die.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
And you wonder why people find you and your kind sickening.
So, after going through the survey with a fine-tooth comb, the sceptics were able to find a grand total of 8 misclassified papers (out of 11944). By my calculations, this changes the figure from 97.1% to 97.0%. This is rounding error territory.
And you wonder why people find you and your kind so dumb?
Consensus is not used in science.
Indeed, and this is why Cook's study is not cited by the IPCC, contrary to your false belief that the 97% came from the IPCC. Consensus is the outcome of science, not an input to science. Cook's paper is interesting in that it gives an idea of the level of consensus, but it is social science rather than natural science. |
|
| 03-05-2017 00:55 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Which scientists have claimed they were misrepresented?
Just out of curiosity why didn't you simply look it up? There are multitudes.
But your religion brooks no disagreement. All non-believers must die.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
And you wonder why people find you and your kind sickening.
So, after going through the survey with a fine-tooth comb, the sceptics were able to find a grand total of 8 misclassified papers (out of 11944). By my calculations, this changes the figure from 97.1% to 97.0%. This is rounding error territory.
And you wonder why people find you and your kind so dumb?
Consensus is not used in science.
Indeed, and this is why Cook's study is not cited by the IPCC, contrary to your false belief that the 97% came from the IPCC. Consensus is the outcome of science, not an input to science. Cook's paper is interesting in that it gives an idea of the level of consensus, but it is social science rather than natural science.
Consensus is neither an input to science nor an output of science. Science simply doesn't use it at all.
Define 'social' science. No links or quotes.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 03-05-2017 01:36 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Which scientists have claimed they were misrepresented?
Just out of curiosity why didn't you simply look it up? There are multitudes.
But your religion brooks no disagreement. All non-believers must die.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
And you wonder why people find you and your kind sickening.
So, after going through the survey with a fine-tooth comb, the sceptics were able to find a grand total of 8 misclassified papers (out of 11944). By my calculations, this changes the figure from 97.1% to 97.0%. This is rounding error territory.
And you wonder why people find you and your kind so dumb?
Consensus is not used in science.
Indeed, and this is why Cook's study is not cited by the IPCC, contrary to your false belief that the 97% came from the IPCC. Consensus is the outcome of science, not an input to science. Cook's paper is interesting in that it gives an idea of the level of consensus, but it is social science rather than natural science.
Consensus is neither an input to science nor an output of science. Science simply doesn't use it at all.
Define 'social' science. No links or quotes.
There is, for example, scientific consensus that the earth orbits the sun, that black holes exist, that atoms exist, etc, etc. There is scientific consensus on these phenomena because large amounts of evidence based on observations and theory indicate that they are true. Consensus is therefore an outcome of science.
Edited on 03-05-2017 01:37 |
| 03-05-2017 01:47 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Which scientists have claimed they were misrepresented?
Just out of curiosity why didn't you simply look it up? There are multitudes.
But your religion brooks no disagreement. All non-believers must die.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
And you wonder why people find you and your kind sickening.
So, after going through the survey with a fine-tooth comb, the sceptics were able to find a grand total of 8 misclassified papers (out of 11944). By my calculations, this changes the figure from 97.1% to 97.0%. This is rounding error territory.
And you wonder why people find you and your kind so dumb?
Consensus is not used in science.
Indeed, and this is why Cook's study is not cited by the IPCC, contrary to your false belief that the 97% came from the IPCC. Consensus is the outcome of science, not an input to science. Cook's paper is interesting in that it gives an idea of the level of consensus, but it is social science rather than natural science.
You again show your worth. 97% has been used REPEATEDLY by NOAA and it was the NOAA paper that the IPCC used to declare a global emergency. |
| 03-05-2017 02:14 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Which scientists have claimed they were misrepresented?
Just out of curiosity why didn't you simply look it up? There are multitudes.
But your religion brooks no disagreement. All non-believers must die.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
And you wonder why people find you and your kind sickening.
So, after going through the survey with a fine-tooth comb, the sceptics were able to find a grand total of 8 misclassified papers (out of 11944). By my calculations, this changes the figure from 97.1% to 97.0%. This is rounding error territory.
And you wonder why people find you and your kind so dumb?
Consensus is not used in science.
Indeed, and this is why Cook's study is not cited by the IPCC, contrary to your false belief that the 97% came from the IPCC. Consensus is the outcome of science, not an input to science. Cook's paper is interesting in that it gives an idea of the level of consensus, but it is social science rather than natural science.
You again show your worth. 97% has been used REPEATEDLY by NOAA and it was the NOAA paper that the IPCC used to declare a global emergency.
Which NOAA paper are you taking about? |
| 03-05-2017 17:05 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
There is scientific consensus on these phenomena because large amounts of evidence based on observations and theory indicate that they are true. Consensus is therefore an outcome of science.
Tell us what evidence there is for black holes? What evidence is there for dark matter? Tell us why far distant galaxies do not show the mass effects that led to the generation of the Dark Matter theory? |
| 03-05-2017 17:27 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
There is scientific consensus on these phenomena because large amounts of evidence based on observations and theory indicate that they are true. Consensus is therefore an outcome of science.
Tell us what evidence there is for black holes? What evidence is there for dark matter? Tell us why far distant galaxies do not show the mass effects that led to the generation of the Dark Matter theory?
This is getting rather off-topic but, as a former astrophysics student, it's a topic that I have an interest in, so I'll reply.
There is no direct evidence of dark matter. All we know is that many, possibly most, galaxies are rotating differently to how they should do under the gravitational effect of the matter that we can see. Something else that we can't see must be exerting an additional gravitational force. We refer to that something as dark matter. Various hypotheses have been proposed for what this "dark matter" might be, but no-one actually knows. It's currently a mystery waiting to be solved by some new Newton or Einstein! |
| 03-05-2017 18:30 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
There is scientific consensus on these phenomena because large amounts of evidence based on observations and theory indicate that they are true. Consensus is therefore an outcome of science.
Tell us what evidence there is for black holes? What evidence is there for dark matter? Tell us why far distant galaxies do not show the mass effects that led to the generation of the Dark Matter theory?
This is getting rather off-topic but, as a former astrophysics student, it's a topic that I have an interest in, so I'll reply.
There is no direct evidence of dark matter. All we know is that many, possibly most, galaxies are rotating differently to how they should do under the gravitational effect of the matter that we can see. Something else that we can't see must be exerting an additional gravitational force. We refer to that something as dark matter. Various hypotheses have been proposed for what this "dark matter" might be, but no-one actually knows. It's currently a mystery waiting to be solved by some new Newton or Einstein!
The fact of the matter is that you only have to read Science magazine to find a study that shows that far distant galaxies do not rotate in these manners indicating "dark matter".
Also we have no direct knowledge of black holes. It is a mathematical theory based upon the strength of gravity as we know it. Furthermore there is just as much proof that IF there was a black hole that below the event horizon nothing could have an effect on this universe meaning that there would be no gravity either.
What do you do for a living now what with your training in astrophysics and all? |
| 03-05-2017 18:37 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
There is scientific consensus on these phenomena because large amounts of evidence based on observations and theory indicate that they are true. Consensus is therefore an outcome of science.
Tell us what evidence there is for black holes? What evidence is there for dark matter? Tell us why far distant galaxies do not show the mass effects that led to the generation of the Dark Matter theory?
This is getting rather off-topic but, as a former astrophysics student, it's a topic that I have an interest in, so I'll reply.
There is no direct evidence of dark matter. All we know is that many, possibly most, galaxies are rotating differently to how they should do under the gravitational effect of the matter that we can see. Something else that we can't see must be exerting an additional gravitational force. We refer to that something as dark matter. Various hypotheses have been proposed for what this "dark matter" might be, but no-one actually knows. It's currently a mystery waiting to be solved by some new Newton or Einstein!
The fact of the matter is that you only have to read Science magazine to find a study that shows that far distant galaxies do not rotate in these manners indicating "dark matter".
I think you may have the wrong end of the stick here. The anomalous rotation of certain galaxies was the reason for proposing the existence of dark matter in the first place! Could you cite one of those studies? |
| 03-05-2017 18:48 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
I think you may have the wrong end of the stick here. The anomalous rotation of certain galaxies was the reason for proposing the existence of dark matter in the first place! Could you cite one of those studies?
I am tired of arguing with you and I'm about to have an eye operated on. I have no intentions of looking anything up for you or calculating anything for you since you are incapable of doing so yourself.
What we have seen is that it is simply pointless to show that the Earth has behaved this way multiple times in the past.
You and the rest of the Environmentalists simple want to commit murder on a global scale to fulfill your need to prove that you're better than others.
Tell you what - just try it. |
| 03-05-2017 19:46 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I think you may have the wrong end of the stick here. The anomalous rotation of certain galaxies was the reason for proposing the existence of dark matter in the first place! Could you cite one of those studies?
I am tired of arguing with you and I'm about to have an eye operated on. I have no intentions of looking anything up for you or calculating anything for you since you are incapable of doing so yourself.
What we have seen is that it is simply pointless to show that the Earth has behaved this way multiple times in the past.
[gratuitous abuse snipped]
I'm not asking you to calculate anything, merely to support your assertion with some sort of evidence, i.e. a link to the one of the studies you mention. I won't press you any further though.
Good luck with your operation. |
| 05-05-2017 18:08 |
James_★★★★★
(2216) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
There is scientific consensus on these phenomena because large amounts of evidence based on observations and theory indicate that they are true. Consensus is therefore an outcome of science.
Tell us what evidence there is for black holes? What evidence is there for dark matter? Tell us why far distant galaxies do not show the mass effects that led to the generation of the Dark Matter theory?
This is getting rather off-topic but, as a former astrophysics student, it's a topic that I have an interest in, so I'll reply.
There is no direct evidence of dark matter. All we know is that many, possibly most, galaxies are rotating differently to how they should do under the gravitational effect of the matter that we can see. Something else that we can't see must be exerting an additional gravitational force. We refer to that something as dark matter. Various hypotheses have been proposed for what this "dark matter" might be, but no-one actually knows. It's currently a mystery waiting to be solved by some new Newton or Einstein!
As far as Einstein goes he supported the hypothesis of there being an aether. This could be why he believed that gravity warped space. After all, if space has no mass then how can it be warped ? It couldn't be. |
| 05-05-2017 18:41 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
James_ wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
There is scientific consensus on these phenomena because large amounts of evidence based on observations and theory indicate that they are true. Consensus is therefore an outcome of science.
Tell us what evidence there is for black holes? What evidence is there for dark matter? Tell us why far distant galaxies do not show the mass effects that led to the generation of the Dark Matter theory?
This is getting rather off-topic but, as a former astrophysics student, it's a topic that I have an interest in, so I'll reply.
There is no direct evidence of dark matter. All we know is that many, possibly most, galaxies are rotating differently to how they should do under the gravitational effect of the matter that we can see. Something else that we can't see must be exerting an additional gravitational force. We refer to that something as dark matter. Various hypotheses have been proposed for what this "dark matter" might be, but no-one actually knows. It's currently a mystery waiting to be solved by some new Newton or Einstein!
As far as Einstein goes he supported the hypothesis of there being an aether. This could be why he believed that gravity warped space. After all, if space has no mass then how can it be warped ? It couldn't be.
Surface Detail,
I can see that you are frustrated by the utter confidence of the know nothings here.
I am even more so. I wish they were not on my "side" of the argument. Their bible bashing brainless assertions make me look like the cooks they are.
I'm sure you must feel the same about lite-thinker. |
| 05-05-2017 20:09 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
James_ wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
There is scientific consensus on these phenomena because large amounts of evidence based on observations and theory indicate that they are true. Consensus is therefore an outcome of science.
Tell us what evidence there is for black holes? What evidence is there for dark matter? Tell us why far distant galaxies do not show the mass effects that led to the generation of the Dark Matter theory?
This is getting rather off-topic but, as a former astrophysics student, it's a topic that I have an interest in, so I'll reply.
There is no direct evidence of dark matter. All we know is that many, possibly most, galaxies are rotating differently to how they should do under the gravitational effect of the matter that we can see. Something else that we can't see must be exerting an additional gravitational force. We refer to that something as dark matter. Various hypotheses have been proposed for what this "dark matter" might be, but no-one actually knows. It's currently a mystery waiting to be solved by some new Newton or Einstein!
As far as Einstein goes he supported the hypothesis of there being an aether. This could be why he believed that gravity warped space. After all, if space has no mass then how can it be warped ? It couldn't be.
This is what I mean by people with no training not being able to understand things as aesthetic as an ether. This is more of a mental practice than a reality. If you reduce physics to only calculations you need to have corrections and since those corrections don't really make sense you just invent meanings for them so that the numbers come out correctly. No there is no ether. And the calculations that try to describe gravity could only make sense if you added this correction factor. And then you have to assign it some sort of meaning. |