Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
29 online now:
Captcass, jar, Tanypteryx, Taq (4 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,697 Year: 16,733/19,786 Month: 858/2,598 Week: 104/251 Day: 57/24 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16101
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 30 of 181 (672511)
09-08-2012 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by TheRestOfUs
09-08-2012 7:44 PM


But while you're preening about how up to date you are; why don't you wow us with your brilliant explanation of the "Pioneer Maser Effect, (Blueshifting)," observed by JPL in the 80's regarding the Pioneer and other spacecraft.

Pioneer anomaly solved. I'm surprised you missed this, it was widely reported.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-08-2012 7:44 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 12:15 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16101
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 181 (672528)
09-09-2012 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by zaius137
09-09-2012 2:17 AM


Re: A few choice comments...
Drawing any conclusion about proving the supposed Big bang all depends on what emphasis you place on any one of these effects.

For example, if you are a physicist, you can calculate their actual magnitude. And if you are a creationist, you can make stuff up and not notice that you're wrong 'cos of knowing damn-all about physics. And this will indeed affect what "emphasis" you place on these effects.

As for the warping of space-time, it stands as an icon of empirical evidence. It is the rock on which shatters fantasies like Quantum gravity or the fictitious Higgs Boson. I mention the Boson here because it is also a casualty of General Relativity in that it cannot impart mass to a black hole.

You know that same Black hole that is the stumbling block to unification and man’s pride.

Once again I have to wonder whether you compose your posts by drawing words at random out of a hat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by zaius137, posted 09-09-2012 2:17 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16101
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 117 of 181 (672730)
09-10-2012 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by TheRestOfUs
09-09-2012 12:15 PM


Since Scheffer,( E- Print arXiv:gr-qc/0107092; gr-qc/0108054), and Katz and Murphy, ( Phys. Rev. Letters 83) long ago ...

Why bother with what was done "long ago" when what I presented was based on newly discovered data?

Perhaps because you have a canned answer to what was said long ago, but not to what was just recently proved?

Scheffer's Model predicted that the thrust from these thermal sources should have declined by 11.8% from "Period I" (10/1988) through "Period III" (7/1995) due to a decline in available spacecraft power and changes in the types of experiments being carried out. instead a much smaller rate of decrease in "acceleration" is seen.

Did you write that correctly? You seem to be saying that the explanation is more than enough to explain the phenomena. In which case you'll have to reverse the nature of the supposed anomaly.

So you see even if they now are saying they've accounted for it, their behavior makes me doubt it.

Their behavior, eh? Rather than their data and their calculations?

Let me know how that works out for you.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 12:15 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019