info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
About the MMI bungle, leading to the horrendous disaster that is absurd physics
142 views
Skip to first unread message
Arindam Banerjee
May 24, 2023, 7:51:01 PM5/24/23
to
> > Point is you refuse to see the bungle they made about their explanations of the nulls.
> I see no bungling.
You refuse to see it.
Anyway, for the umpteenth time, I will point it out.
In those days they believed in aether, as an infinitely fine infinitely elastic SOLID permeting the universe, and carrying all matter and waves (aetheric disturbances).
As it was a fixed solid in 3D space, it had x y z for every point, with - inf and + inf for all x y z.
Let us take a beam of light going along the x axis.
It starts at x = x1, where x1 is the unique point if space.
It ends at x = x2, where x2 is another unique point in space.
As per the experimenters, the distance it travels is some length L, measured as per any normal measurement. AND THIS IS THE HUGE, HUGE, BUNGLE.
For x2 - x1 is the actual length travelled by the light.
And it is NOT L, save for one angle (which I have mentioned in my 2005 paper).
************
x2 - x1 = L + v*t where
v is the speed of the emitter with respect to aether
and t = L/c (near about, actually t = (L+v*t)/c)
************
So the distance actually travelled by the light is MORE or LESS than L, depending upon the direction of v.
But this subtle issue was not taken into consideration.
And that led to all the absured nonsense of relativity.
Now, since the distances are more or less, for the null to happen, the speed of light MUST vary with the speed of the emitter.
When light speed varies with emitter velocity, the speed of light is c+v
The distance it travels is L+vt
The time to travel the distance (L + vt) is (L+vt)/(c+v)
As L = ct the time to travel is (ct + vt)/(c+v)
Which is t(c+v)/(c+v) = t.
So whatever the direction of v, the time for travel is always the same, that is, t.
As the time for travel for any angle for v is always t, there must be nulls.
(Note: Experimenters state that the nulls are not quite sharp, and that too is explained from the approximations here.)
Mind you, this is not assuming that the speed of light is constant... far from it!
We are simply saying that light speed varies with the speed of the emitter, as is evident for Doppler effect, redshift, etc.
So the distance light travel is not the measured L, but something else depending upon the direction of the light emitter. The actual distance travelled, by the light in a straight and straightforward Newtonian universe, is L + vt, when the crazy and ridiculous twisted up notions of spacetime, which were developed later, so not applicable then, are discarded. They had simply bungled. But will not own up!
The early and subsequent incompetents bungled by not considering this, assuming they were just honest bunglers and not cunning dogmatic creatures trying to do away with aether as it relates to the Hindu concept of aum.
After that no end of lies and fraud by the Einsteinian pseodoscientists, in their successful attempts to corrupt physics in order to maintain Jewish metaphysics and get their fundings.
Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
> I see no bungling.
You refuse to see it.
Anyway, for the umpteenth time, I will point it out.
In those days they believed in aether, as an infinitely fine infinitely elastic SOLID permeting the universe, and carrying all matter and waves (aetheric disturbances).
As it was a fixed solid in 3D space, it had x y z for every point, with - inf and + inf for all x y z.
Let us take a beam of light going along the x axis.
It starts at x = x1, where x1 is the unique point if space.
It ends at x = x2, where x2 is another unique point in space.
As per the experimenters, the distance it travels is some length L, measured as per any normal measurement. AND THIS IS THE HUGE, HUGE, BUNGLE.
For x2 - x1 is the actual length travelled by the light.
And it is NOT L, save for one angle (which I have mentioned in my 2005 paper).
************
x2 - x1 = L + v*t where
v is the speed of the emitter with respect to aether
and t = L/c (near about, actually t = (L+v*t)/c)
************
So the distance actually travelled by the light is MORE or LESS than L, depending upon the direction of v.
But this subtle issue was not taken into consideration.
And that led to all the absured nonsense of relativity.
Now, since the distances are more or less, for the null to happen, the speed of light MUST vary with the speed of the emitter.
When light speed varies with emitter velocity, the speed of light is c+v
The distance it travels is L+vt
The time to travel the distance (L + vt) is (L+vt)/(c+v)
As L = ct the time to travel is (ct + vt)/(c+v)
Which is t(c+v)/(c+v) = t.
So whatever the direction of v, the time for travel is always the same, that is, t.
As the time for travel for any angle for v is always t, there must be nulls.
(Note: Experimenters state that the nulls are not quite sharp, and that too is explained from the approximations here.)
Mind you, this is not assuming that the speed of light is constant... far from it!
We are simply saying that light speed varies with the speed of the emitter, as is evident for Doppler effect, redshift, etc.
So the distance light travel is not the measured L, but something else depending upon the direction of the light emitter. The actual distance travelled, by the light in a straight and straightforward Newtonian universe, is L + vt, when the crazy and ridiculous twisted up notions of spacetime, which were developed later, so not applicable then, are discarded. They had simply bungled. But will not own up!
The early and subsequent incompetents bungled by not considering this, assuming they were just honest bunglers and not cunning dogmatic creatures trying to do away with aether as it relates to the Hindu concept of aum.
After that no end of lies and fraud by the Einsteinian pseodoscientists, in their successful attempts to corrupt physics in order to maintain Jewish metaphysics and get their fundings.
Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
Paul Alsing
May 24, 2023, 10:30:12 PM5/24/23
to
Oh, before I forget, you are delusional.
whodat
May 24, 2023, 11:16:55 PM5/24/23
to
On 5/24/2023 9:30 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
<...>
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
> In the race to the bottom of the barrel in this forum, Arindam, I do believe that you have an insurmountable lead. Congratulations, I know this will be a momentous victory for you! At long last, you are the *best* at something!
> Oh, before I forget, you are delusional.
reply to, this maniac.
I know that I spent too much time on him.
This is not a criticism, it is an answerable question.
Paul Alsing
May 25, 2023, 12:56:22 AM5/25/23
to
Some folks are just too easy to poke and prod because they are clearly just asking for it.
As always, for me it starts because they are obviously ignorant of the subject matter and I hope to only nudge them in the right direction, to lead them to educational links. Most of the time this does not work because, of, you know, the D-K effect, and those poor souls have no idea that they could possibly be wrong. It also does not work because people who actually want to learn about this stuff seek out the educational links for themselves and never bother to come here and ask questions. I rarely ask a question here myself, not because I already know the answer, but rather because it is easy to find intelligent references via a search engine. The answers I find there are not only faster, but probably much more reliable to boot. On the other hand, since it has been over 50 years since I earned a degree in physics, I have learned, or maybe re-learned, quite a lot of good physics because of the posts of the several actual learned scholars here who obviously know (mostly) what they are talking about. I mean, I was junior in college when Jocelyn Bell discovered the first radio pulsar!
I am not close to being an elite here but I do have a terrific Bullshit Meter!
Arindam Banerjee
May 25, 2023, 3:01:25 AM5/25/23
to
This is what happens when subtle bungles, like rotten fish, are covered up by the impressive sauces of math and text gibberish.
The whole of physics got derailed.
But dear unborn, have no fear, it is or will soon be back on the rails, and take you to the stars.
Arindam Banerjee
May 25, 2023, 3:05:00 AM5/25/23
to
That will put you among the elites, right up there with Archie, whodumbo and Moroney.
Enes Richard
May 25, 2023, 4:17:24 AM5/25/23
to
From your posts, it was clear that hundreds of physicists had calculated it in a complicated way for many years by estimating the masses of the stars orbiting there. If this were the case, it is an unbelievable scandal and simply incompetence (regardless of the fictitious black hole).
Arindam Banerjee
May 25, 2023, 6:51:01 AM5/25/23
to
The bullshit of the robot Alsing
Is more than disgustingly repelling.
Based on emceecee
It is chhee-chhee -
Far from healthy bodies, that bullshit fling.
Volney
May 25, 2023, 10:44:08 AM5/25/23
to
On 5/25/2023 12:56 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> I am not close to being an elite here but I do have a terrific Bullshit Meter!
Like Paul, I, too, have a great bullshit meter, but folks like Banerjee
> I am not close to being an elite here but I do have a terrific Bullshit Meter!
keep overloading it!
Murel Meisner
May 25, 2023, 1:28:13 PM5/25/23
to
*anglo_saxon_atomic_bombs* detonation.
*Radiation_Climbs* in Ukraine *after_NATO's_Depleted_Uranium* Munitions
Bombed by Russia https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/WwoM7jbl5CQz
here's your gay "president" for which the fucking europe is bombed with
atomic bombs by the *anglo_saxons*. The *anglo_saxons* are barbaric
*subhuman_excrement*.
In Zelensky We trust because our TV says so - What Ukraine Kill List
*FREE_Gonzalo_Lira_!*
https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/rsRie4L23fDn
Enes Richard
May 26, 2023, 2:49:44 AM5/26/23
to
czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 06:56:22 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:16:55 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > On 5/24/2023 9:30 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > <...>
> > >> Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
> >
> > > In the race to the bottom of the barrel in this forum, Arindam, I do believe that you have an insurmountable lead. Congratulations, I know this will be a momentous victory for you! At long last, you are the *best* at something!
> >
> > > Oh, before I forget, you are delusional.
>
> > I just plain don't get why anyone continues to read, let alone
> > reply to, this maniac.
> >
> > I know that I spent too much time on him.
> >
> > This is not a criticism, it is an answerable question.
> I fully understand your non-critical observation, and I don't really have a good answer for you. I mostly just pass the time while watching whatever the wife wants to watch on TV. If I'm watching sports then I pay attention!
>
> Some folks are just too easy to poke and prod because they are clearly just asking for it.
>
Try to find yourself some asylum, in moments of solstice even a short separation
> > On 5/24/2023 9:30 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > <...>
> > >> Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
> >
> > > In the race to the bottom of the barrel in this forum, Arindam, I do believe that you have an insurmountable lead. Congratulations, I know this will be a momentous victory for you! At long last, you are the *best* at something!
> >
> > > Oh, before I forget, you are delusional.
>
> > I just plain don't get why anyone continues to read, let alone
> > reply to, this maniac.
> >
> > I know that I spent too much time on him.
> >
> > This is not a criticism, it is an answerable question.
> I fully understand your non-critical observation, and I don't really have a good answer for you. I mostly just pass the time while watching whatever the wife wants to watch on TV. If I'm watching sports then I pay attention!
>
> Some folks are just too easy to poke and prod because they are clearly just asking for it.
>
from home is the best, you will be less frustrated...
Arindam Banerjee
May 26, 2023, 2:55:57 AM5/26/23
to
Don't get greedy.
Enes Richard
May 26, 2023, 6:43:27 AM5/26/23
to
After all, they are not morons, and a complicated method may have been chosen in order to better manipulate the input data and influence the range of results of calculations of the fictitious black hole mass. But that would be complete pseudoscience, and even worse...
Let's check this using only the parameters of the orbits of the 12 stars in Sgr A* (tables) and compare our spread of results with the spread achieved by hundreds of physicists estimating the masses of orbiting stars.
Paul Alsing
May 26, 2023, 11:57:05 AM5/26/23
to
On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 1:17:24 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 06:56:22 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:16:55 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > On 5/24/2023 9:30 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > <...>
> > > >> Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
> > >
> > > > In the race to the bottom of the barrel in this forum, Arindam, I do believe that you have an insurmountable lead. Congratulations, I know this will be a momentous victory for you! At long last, you are the *best* at something!
> > >
> > > > Oh, before I forget, you are delusional.
> >
> > > I just plain don't get why anyone continues to read, let alone
> > > reply to, this maniac.
> > >
> > > I know that I spent too much time on him.
> > >
> > > This is not a criticism, it is an answerable question.
> > I fully understand your non-critical observation, and I don't really have a good answer for you. I mostly just pass the time while watching whatever the wife wants to watch on TV. If I'm watching sports then I pay attention!
> >
> > Some folks are just too easy to poke and prod because they are clearly just asking for it.
> >
> > As always, for me it starts because they are obviously ignorant of the subject matter and I hope to only nudge them in the right direction, to lead them to educational links. Most of the time this does not work because, of, you know, the D-K effect, and those poor souls have no idea that they could possibly be wrong. It also does not work because people who actually want to learn about this stuff seek out the educational links for themselves and never bother to come here and ask questions. I rarely ask a question here myself, not because I already know the answer, but rather because it is easy to find intelligent references via a search engine. The answers I find there are not only faster, but probably much more reliable to boot. On the other hand, since it has been over 50 years since I earned a degree in physics, I have learned, or maybe re-learned, quite a lot of good physics because of the posts of the several actual learned scholars here who obviously know (mostly) what they are talking about. I mean, I was junior in college when Jocelyn Bell discovered the first radio pulsar!
> >
> > I am not close to being an elite here but I do have a terrific Bullshit Meter!
> >
> I will immodestly remind you that I have contributed to your education here. I showed you Kepler's generalized 3rd law as a way to calculate the mass of a fictitious black hole in Sgr A* (only using stellar orbit parameters).
The very fact that, without a shred of evidence, you claim that black holes are fictitious, indicates that you are incapable of teaching me anything. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that you are very wrong.
> czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 06:56:22 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:16:55 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > On 5/24/2023 9:30 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > <...>
> > > >> Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
> > >
> > > > In the race to the bottom of the barrel in this forum, Arindam, I do believe that you have an insurmountable lead. Congratulations, I know this will be a momentous victory for you! At long last, you are the *best* at something!
> > >
> > > > Oh, before I forget, you are delusional.
> >
> > > I just plain don't get why anyone continues to read, let alone
> > > reply to, this maniac.
> > >
> > > I know that I spent too much time on him.
> > >
> > > This is not a criticism, it is an answerable question.
> > I fully understand your non-critical observation, and I don't really have a good answer for you. I mostly just pass the time while watching whatever the wife wants to watch on TV. If I'm watching sports then I pay attention!
> >
> > Some folks are just too easy to poke and prod because they are clearly just asking for it.
> >
> > As always, for me it starts because they are obviously ignorant of the subject matter and I hope to only nudge them in the right direction, to lead them to educational links. Most of the time this does not work because, of, you know, the D-K effect, and those poor souls have no idea that they could possibly be wrong. It also does not work because people who actually want to learn about this stuff seek out the educational links for themselves and never bother to come here and ask questions. I rarely ask a question here myself, not because I already know the answer, but rather because it is easy to find intelligent references via a search engine. The answers I find there are not only faster, but probably much more reliable to boot. On the other hand, since it has been over 50 years since I earned a degree in physics, I have learned, or maybe re-learned, quite a lot of good physics because of the posts of the several actual learned scholars here who obviously know (mostly) what they are talking about. I mean, I was junior in college when Jocelyn Bell discovered the first radio pulsar!
> >
> > I am not close to being an elite here but I do have a terrific Bullshit Meter!
> >
> I will immodestly remind you that I have contributed to your education here. I showed you Kepler's generalized 3rd law as a way to calculate the mass of a fictitious black hole in Sgr A* (only using stellar orbit parameters).
>
> From your posts, it was clear that hundreds of physicists had calculated it in a complicated way for many years by estimating the masses of the stars orbiting there. If this were the case, it is an unbelievable scandal and simply incompetence (regardless of the fictitious black hole).
There are very good reasons why physicists use spectral types to estimate stellar masses, it is because that method works!
> From your posts, it was clear that hundreds of physicists had calculated it in a complicated way for many years by estimating the masses of the stars orbiting there. If this were the case, it is an unbelievable scandal and simply incompetence (regardless of the fictitious black hole).
Enes Richard
May 26, 2023, 6:17:21 PM5/26/23
to
piątek, 26 maja 2023 o 17:57:05 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 1:17:24 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> > czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 06:56:22 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:16:55 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > On 5/24/2023 9:30 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > <...>
> > > > >> Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
> > > >
> > > > > In the race to the bottom of the barrel in this forum, Arindam, I do believe that you have an insurmountable lead. Congratulations, I know this will be a momentous victory for you! At long last, you are the *best* at something!
> > > >
> > > > > Oh, before I forget, you are delusional.
> > >
> > > > I just plain don't get why anyone continues to read, let alone
> > > > reply to, this maniac.
> > > >
> > > > I know that I spent too much time on him.
> > > >
> > > > This is not a criticism, it is an answerable question.
> > > I fully understand your non-critical observation, and I don't really have a good answer for you. I mostly just pass the time while watching whatever the wife wants to watch on TV. If I'm watching sports then I pay attention!
> > >
> > > Some folks are just too easy to poke and prod because they are clearly just asking for it.
> > >
> > > As always, for me it starts because they are obviously ignorant of the subject matter and I hope to only nudge them in the right direction, to lead them to educational links. Most of the time this does not work because, of, you know, the D-K effect, and those poor souls have no idea that they could possibly be wrong. It also does not work because people who actually want to learn about this stuff seek out the educational links for themselves and never bother to come here and ask questions. I rarely ask a question here myself, not because I already know the answer, but rather because it is easy to find intelligent references via a search engine. The answers I find there are not only faster, but probably much more reliable to boot. On the other hand, since it has been over 50 years since I earned a degree in physics, I have learned, or maybe re-learned, quite a lot of good physics because of the posts of the several actual learned scholars here who obviously know (mostly) what they are talking about. I mean, I was junior in college when Jocelyn Bell discovered the first radio pulsar!
> > >
> > > I am not close to being an elite here but I do have a terrific Bullshit Meter!
> > >
> > I will immodestly remind you that I have contributed to your education here. I showed you Kepler's generalized 3rd law as a way to calculate the mass of a fictitious black hole in Sgr A* (only using stellar orbit parameters).
> The very fact that, without a shred of evidence, you claim that black holes are fictitious, indicates that you are incapable of teaching me anything. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that you are very wrong.
>
I am not saying that black holes are fictitious, on the contrary, after modifying the concept/definition (not a mathematical "black hole" but a physical object "dark hole" with extreme density, currently an electron) they can have a decisive influence in the evolution of the Universe. Treating dark (non-black) holes not only as individual objects, but also as occurring in groups gives synergy effects that allow to replace dark mass and energy.
> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 1:17:24 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> > czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 06:56:22 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:16:55 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > On 5/24/2023 9:30 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > <...>
> > > > >> Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
> > > >
> > > > > In the race to the bottom of the barrel in this forum, Arindam, I do believe that you have an insurmountable lead. Congratulations, I know this will be a momentous victory for you! At long last, you are the *best* at something!
> > > >
> > > > > Oh, before I forget, you are delusional.
> > >
> > > > I just plain don't get why anyone continues to read, let alone
> > > > reply to, this maniac.
> > > >
> > > > I know that I spent too much time on him.
> > > >
> > > > This is not a criticism, it is an answerable question.
> > > I fully understand your non-critical observation, and I don't really have a good answer for you. I mostly just pass the time while watching whatever the wife wants to watch on TV. If I'm watching sports then I pay attention!
> > >
> > > Some folks are just too easy to poke and prod because they are clearly just asking for it.
> > >
> > > As always, for me it starts because they are obviously ignorant of the subject matter and I hope to only nudge them in the right direction, to lead them to educational links. Most of the time this does not work because, of, you know, the D-K effect, and those poor souls have no idea that they could possibly be wrong. It also does not work because people who actually want to learn about this stuff seek out the educational links for themselves and never bother to come here and ask questions. I rarely ask a question here myself, not because I already know the answer, but rather because it is easy to find intelligent references via a search engine. The answers I find there are not only faster, but probably much more reliable to boot. On the other hand, since it has been over 50 years since I earned a degree in physics, I have learned, or maybe re-learned, quite a lot of good physics because of the posts of the several actual learned scholars here who obviously know (mostly) what they are talking about. I mean, I was junior in college when Jocelyn Bell discovered the first radio pulsar!
> > >
> > > I am not close to being an elite here but I do have a terrific Bullshit Meter!
> > >
> > I will immodestly remind you that I have contributed to your education here. I showed you Kepler's generalized 3rd law as a way to calculate the mass of a fictitious black hole in Sgr A* (only using stellar orbit parameters).
> The very fact that, without a shred of evidence, you claim that black holes are fictitious, indicates that you are incapable of teaching me anything. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that you are very wrong.
>
On the other hand, I believe that the promoted black hole in Sgr A* is fiction (there is no black hole there), which is paradoxically evidenced even by a photo of the surroundings of the alleged black hole with three forming stars....
> >
> > From your posts, it was clear that hundreds of physicists had calculated it in a complicated way for many years by estimating the masses of the stars orbiting there. If this were the case, it is an unbelievable scandal and simply incompetence (regardless of the fictitious black hole).
> There are very good reasons why physicists use spectral types to estimate stellar masses, it is because that method works!
>
Arindam Banerjee
May 26, 2023, 6:49:30 PM5/26/23
to
On Saturday, 27 May 2023 at 08:17:21 UTC+10, Enes Richard wrote:
> piątek, 26 maja 2023 o 17:57:05 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 1:17:24 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> > > czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 06:56:22 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:16:55 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > > On 5/24/2023 9:30 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > <...>
> > > > > >> Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
> > > > >
> > > > > > In the race to the bottom of the barrel in this forum, Arindam, I do believe that you have an insurmountable lead. Congratulations, I know this will be a momentous victory for you! At long last, you are the *best* at something!
> > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, before I forget, you are delusional.
> > > >
> > > > > I just plain don't get why anyone continues to read, let alone
> > > > > reply to, this maniac.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know that I spent too much time on him.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not a criticism, it is an answerable question.
> > > > I fully understand your non-critical observation, and I don't really have a good answer for you. I mostly just pass the time while watching whatever the wife wants to watch on TV. If I'm watching sports then I pay attention!
> > > >
> > > > Some folks are just too easy to poke and prod because they are clearly just asking for it.
> > > >
> > > > As always, for me it starts because they are obviously ignorant of the subject matter and I hope to only nudge them in the right direction, to lead them to educational links. Most of the time this does not work because, of, you know, the D-K effect, and those poor souls have no idea that they could possibly be wrong. It also does not work because people who actually want to learn about this stuff seek out the educational links for themselves and never bother to come here and ask questions. I rarely ask a question here myself, not because I already know the answer, but rather because it is easy to find intelligent references via a search engine. The answers I find there are not only faster, but probably much more reliable to boot. On the other hand, since it has been over 50 years since I earned a degree in physics, I have learned, or maybe re-learned, quite a lot of good physics because of the posts of the several actual learned scholars here who obviously know (mostly) what they are talking about. I mean, I was junior in college when Jocelyn Bell discovered the first radio pulsar!
> > > >
> > > > I am not close to being an elite here but I do have a terrific Bullshit Meter!
> > > >
> > > I will immodestly remind you that I have contributed to your education here. I showed you Kepler's generalized 3rd law as a way to calculate the mass of a fictitious black hole in Sgr A* (only using stellar orbit parameters).
> > The very fact that, without a shred of evidence, you claim that black holes are fictitious, indicates that you are incapable of teaching me anything. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that you are very wrong.
> >
> I am not saying that black holes are fictitious,
Why not?
> piątek, 26 maja 2023 o 17:57:05 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 1:17:24 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> > > czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 06:56:22 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:16:55 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > > On 5/24/2023 9:30 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > <...>
> > > > > >> Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
> > > > >
> > > > > > In the race to the bottom of the barrel in this forum, Arindam, I do believe that you have an insurmountable lead. Congratulations, I know this will be a momentous victory for you! At long last, you are the *best* at something!
> > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, before I forget, you are delusional.
> > > >
> > > > > I just plain don't get why anyone continues to read, let alone
> > > > > reply to, this maniac.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know that I spent too much time on him.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not a criticism, it is an answerable question.
> > > > I fully understand your non-critical observation, and I don't really have a good answer for you. I mostly just pass the time while watching whatever the wife wants to watch on TV. If I'm watching sports then I pay attention!
> > > >
> > > > Some folks are just too easy to poke and prod because they are clearly just asking for it.
> > > >
> > > > As always, for me it starts because they are obviously ignorant of the subject matter and I hope to only nudge them in the right direction, to lead them to educational links. Most of the time this does not work because, of, you know, the D-K effect, and those poor souls have no idea that they could possibly be wrong. It also does not work because people who actually want to learn about this stuff seek out the educational links for themselves and never bother to come here and ask questions. I rarely ask a question here myself, not because I already know the answer, but rather because it is easy to find intelligent references via a search engine. The answers I find there are not only faster, but probably much more reliable to boot. On the other hand, since it has been over 50 years since I earned a degree in physics, I have learned, or maybe re-learned, quite a lot of good physics because of the posts of the several actual learned scholars here who obviously know (mostly) what they are talking about. I mean, I was junior in college when Jocelyn Bell discovered the first radio pulsar!
> > > >
> > > > I am not close to being an elite here but I do have a terrific Bullshit Meter!
> > > >
> > > I will immodestly remind you that I have contributed to your education here. I showed you Kepler's generalized 3rd law as a way to calculate the mass of a fictitious black hole in Sgr A* (only using stellar orbit parameters).
> > The very fact that, without a shred of evidence, you claim that black holes are fictitious, indicates that you are incapable of teaching me anything. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that you are very wrong.
> >
> I am not saying that black holes are fictitious,
>on the contrary, after modifying the concept/definition (not a mathematical "black hole" but a physical object "dark hole" with extreme density, currently an electron) they can have a decisive influence in the evolution of the Universe.
>Treating dark (non-black) holes not only as individual objects, but also as occurring in groups gives synergy effects that allow to replace dark mass and energy.
Paul Alsing
May 26, 2023, 9:28:45 PM5/26/23
to
On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 3:17:21 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> piątek, 26 maja 2023 o 17:57:05 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 1:17:24 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> > > czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 06:56:22 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:16:55 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > > On 5/24/2023 9:30 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > <...>
> > > > > >> Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
> > > > >
> > > > > > In the race to the bottom of the barrel in this forum, Arindam, I do believe that you have an insurmountable lead. Congratulations, I know this will be a momentous victory for you! At long last, you are the *best* at something!
> > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, before I forget, you are delusional.
> > > >
> > > > > I just plain don't get why anyone continues to read, let alone
> > > > > reply to, this maniac.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know that I spent too much time on him.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not a criticism, it is an answerable question.
> > > > I fully understand your non-critical observation, and I don't really have a good answer for you. I mostly just pass the time while watching whatever the wife wants to watch on TV. If I'm watching sports then I pay attention!
> > > >
> > > > Some folks are just too easy to poke and prod because they are clearly just asking for it.
> > > >
> > > > As always, for me it starts because they are obviously ignorant of the subject matter and I hope to only nudge them in the right direction, to lead them to educational links. Most of the time this does not work because, of, you know, the D-K effect, and those poor souls have no idea that they could possibly be wrong. It also does not work because people who actually want to learn about this stuff seek out the educational links for themselves and never bother to come here and ask questions. I rarely ask a question here myself, not because I already know the answer, but rather because it is easy to find intelligent references via a search engine. The answers I find there are not only faster, but probably much more reliable to boot. On the other hand, since it has been over 50 years since I earned a degree in physics, I have learned, or maybe re-learned, quite a lot of good physics because of the posts of the several actual learned scholars here who obviously know (mostly) what they are talking about. I mean, I was junior in college when Jocelyn Bell discovered the first radio pulsar!
> > > >
> > > > I am not close to being an elite here but I do have a terrific Bullshit Meter!
> > > >
> > > I will immodestly remind you that I have contributed to your education here. I showed you Kepler's generalized 3rd law as a way to calculate the mass of a fictitious black hole in Sgr A* (only using stellar orbit parameters).
> > The very fact that, without a shred of evidence, you claim that black holes are fictitious, indicates that you are incapable of teaching me anything. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that you are very wrong.
> >
> I am not saying that black holes are fictitious, on the contrary, after modifying the concept/definition (not a mathematical "black hole" but a physical object "dark hole" with extreme density, currently an electron) they can have a decisive influence in the evolution of the Universe. Treating dark (non-black) holes not only as individual objects, but also as occurring in groups gives synergy effects that allow to replace dark mass and energy.
I have a 4 year-old grandson who knows more physics than you do. Get another hobby, this one is way too hard for you. The evidence for black holes is simply overwhelming and your denial is just laughable.
> piątek, 26 maja 2023 o 17:57:05 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 1:17:24 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> > > czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 06:56:22 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:16:55 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > > On 5/24/2023 9:30 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > <...>
> > > > > >> Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
> > > > >
> > > > > > In the race to the bottom of the barrel in this forum, Arindam, I do believe that you have an insurmountable lead. Congratulations, I know this will be a momentous victory for you! At long last, you are the *best* at something!
> > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, before I forget, you are delusional.
> > > >
> > > > > I just plain don't get why anyone continues to read, let alone
> > > > > reply to, this maniac.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know that I spent too much time on him.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not a criticism, it is an answerable question.
> > > > I fully understand your non-critical observation, and I don't really have a good answer for you. I mostly just pass the time while watching whatever the wife wants to watch on TV. If I'm watching sports then I pay attention!
> > > >
> > > > Some folks are just too easy to poke and prod because they are clearly just asking for it.
> > > >
> > > > As always, for me it starts because they are obviously ignorant of the subject matter and I hope to only nudge them in the right direction, to lead them to educational links. Most of the time this does not work because, of, you know, the D-K effect, and those poor souls have no idea that they could possibly be wrong. It also does not work because people who actually want to learn about this stuff seek out the educational links for themselves and never bother to come here and ask questions. I rarely ask a question here myself, not because I already know the answer, but rather because it is easy to find intelligent references via a search engine. The answers I find there are not only faster, but probably much more reliable to boot. On the other hand, since it has been over 50 years since I earned a degree in physics, I have learned, or maybe re-learned, quite a lot of good physics because of the posts of the several actual learned scholars here who obviously know (mostly) what they are talking about. I mean, I was junior in college when Jocelyn Bell discovered the first radio pulsar!
> > > >
> > > > I am not close to being an elite here but I do have a terrific Bullshit Meter!
> > > >
> > > I will immodestly remind you that I have contributed to your education here. I showed you Kepler's generalized 3rd law as a way to calculate the mass of a fictitious black hole in Sgr A* (only using stellar orbit parameters).
> > The very fact that, without a shred of evidence, you claim that black holes are fictitious, indicates that you are incapable of teaching me anything. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that you are very wrong.
> >
> I am not saying that black holes are fictitious, on the contrary, after modifying the concept/definition (not a mathematical "black hole" but a physical object "dark hole" with extreme density, currently an electron) they can have a decisive influence in the evolution of the Universe. Treating dark (non-black) holes not only as individual objects, but also as occurring in groups gives synergy effects that allow to replace dark mass and energy.
>
> On the other hand, I believe that the promoted black hole in Sgr A* is fiction (there is no black hole there), which is paradoxically evidenced even by a photo of the surroundings of the alleged black hole with three forming stars....
If there is no black hole at the center of our galaxy, then what exactly is the 4 million solar mass object there? We KNOW there is a 4-million solar mass object there because f the stars in orbit around it. We KNOW that this mass is only 17 light-hours in diameter. So tell me, you freaking genius, what exactly is there?
> On the other hand, I believe that the promoted black hole in Sgr A* is fiction (there is no black hole there), which is paradoxically evidenced even by a photo of the surroundings of the alleged black hole with three forming stars....
> > > From your posts, it was clear that hundreds of physicists had calculated it in a complicated way for many years by estimating the masses of the stars orbiting there. If this were the case, it is an unbelievable scandal and simply incompetence (regardless of the fictitious black hole).
> > There are very good reasons why physicists use spectral types to estimate stellar masses, it is because that method works!
> In this case, it was unnecessary, the parameters of the orbits were enough. Similarly, you don't need the mass of the Earth (or any other planet) to determine the mass of the Sun, orbits data are enaught.
Arindam Banerjee
May 27, 2023, 3:46:08 AM5/27/23
to
On Saturday, 27 May 2023 at 11:28:45 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 3:17:21 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> > piątek, 26 maja 2023 o 17:57:05 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 1:17:24 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> > > > czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 06:56:22 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:16:55 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/24/2023 9:30 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > <...>
> > > > > > >> Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the race to the bottom of the barrel in this forum, Arindam, I do believe that you have an insurmountable lead. Congratulations, I know this will be a momentous victory for you! At long last, you are the *best* at something!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, before I forget, you are delusional.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I just plain don't get why anyone continues to read, let alone
> > > > > > reply to, this maniac.
Ad hom, pathetic!
> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 3:17:21 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> > piątek, 26 maja 2023 o 17:57:05 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 1:17:24 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> > > > czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 06:56:22 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:16:55 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/24/2023 9:30 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > <...>
> > > > > > >> Tesla saw through them, and was duly persecuted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the race to the bottom of the barrel in this forum, Arindam, I do believe that you have an insurmountable lead. Congratulations, I know this will be a momentous victory for you! At long last, you are the *best* at something!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, before I forget, you are delusional.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I just plain don't get why anyone continues to read, let alone
> > > > > > reply to, this maniac.
Only thing to do for the e=mcc mobs before their global-scale sackings.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know that I spent too much time on him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is not a criticism, it is an answerable question.
> > > > > I fully understand your non-critical observation, and I don't really have a good answer for you. I mostly just pass the time while watching whatever the wife wants to watch on TV. If I'm watching sports then I pay attention!
> > > > >
> > > > > Some folks are just too easy to poke and prod because they are clearly just asking for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > As always, for me it starts because they are obviously ignorant of the subject matter and I hope to only nudge them in the right direction, to lead them to educational links. Most of the time this does not work because, of, you know, the D-K effect, and those poor souls have no idea that they could possibly be wrong. It also does not work because people who actually want to learn about this stuff seek out the educational links for themselves and never bother to come here and ask questions. I rarely ask a question here myself, not because I already know the answer, but rather because it is easy to find intelligent references via a search engine. The answers I find there are not only faster, but probably much more reliable to boot. On the other hand, since it has been over 50 years since I earned a degree in physics, I have learned, or maybe re-learned, quite a lot of good physics because of the posts of the several actual learned scholars here who obviously know (mostly) what they are talking about. I mean, I was junior in college when Jocelyn Bell discovered the first radio pulsar!
.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not close to being an elite here but I do have a terrific Bullshit Meter!
> > > > >
> > > > I will immodestly remind you that I have contributed to your education here. I showed you Kepler's generalized 3rd law as a way to calculate the mass of a fictitious black hole in Sgr A* (only using stellar orbit parameters).
>
> > > The very fact that, without a shred of evidence, you claim that black holes are fictitious, indicates that you are incapable of teaching me anything. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that you are very wrong.
> > >
> > I am not saying that black holes are fictitious, on the contrary, after modifying the concept/definition (not a mathematical "black hole" but a physical object "dark hole" with extreme density, currently an electron) they can have a decisive influence in the evolution of the Universe. Treating dark (non-black) holes not only as individual objects, but also as occurring in groups gives synergy effects that allow to replace dark mass and energy.
> I have a 4 year-old grandson who knows more physics than you do. Get another hobby, this one is way too hard for you. The evidence for black holes is simply overwhelming and your denial is just laughable.
More ad hominem, pathetic to think this is the result of many billions worth of fundings by the fooled public.
> > > > > I am not close to being an elite here but I do have a terrific Bullshit Meter!
> > > > >
> > > > I will immodestly remind you that I have contributed to your education here. I showed you Kepler's generalized 3rd law as a way to calculate the mass of a fictitious black hole in Sgr A* (only using stellar orbit parameters).
>
> > > The very fact that, without a shred of evidence, you claim that black holes are fictitious, indicates that you are incapable of teaching me anything. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that you are very wrong.
> > >
> > I am not saying that black holes are fictitious, on the contrary, after modifying the concept/definition (not a mathematical "black hole" but a physical object "dark hole" with extreme density, currently an electron) they can have a decisive influence in the evolution of the Universe. Treating dark (non-black) holes not only as individual objects, but also as occurring in groups gives synergy effects that allow to replace dark mass and energy.
> I have a 4 year-old grandson who knows more physics than you do. Get another hobby, this one is way too hard for you. The evidence for black holes is simply overwhelming and your denial is just laughable.
> >
> > On the other hand, I believe that the promoted black hole in Sgr A* is fiction (there is no black hole there), which is paradoxically evidenced even by a photo of the surroundings of the alleged black hole with three forming stars....
> If there is no black hole at the center of our galaxy, then what exactly is the 4 million solar mass object there? We KNOW there is a 4-million solar mass object there because f the stars in orbit around it. We KNOW that this mass is only 17 light-hours in diameter. So tell me, you freaking genius, what exactly is there?
> > > > From your posts, it was clear that hundreds of physicists had calculated it in a complicated way for many years by estimating the masses of the stars orbiting there. If this were the case, it is an unbelievable scandal and simply incompetence (regardless of the fictitious black hole).
>
> > > There are very good reasons why physicists use spectral types to estimate stellar masses, it is because that method works!
>
> > In this case, it was unnecessary, the parameters of the orbits were enough. Similarly, you don't need the mass of the Earth (or any other planet) to determine the mass of the Sun, orbits data are enaught.
> You know nothing about how all of this works... NOTHING! You are right in there with Arindam and Mitch, completely and utterly clueless.
Black holes are imaginary nonsenses to give credibility to the ridiculously wrong relativity theories.
Enes Richard
May 27, 2023, 5:55:31 PM5/27/23
to
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I believe that the promoted black hole in Sgr A* is fiction (there is no black hole there), which is paradoxically evidenced even by a photo of the surroundings of the alleged black hole with three forming stars....
> > If there is no black hole at the center of our galaxy, then what exactly is the 4 million solar mass object there? We KNOW there is a 4-million solar mass object there because f the stars in orbit around it. We KNOW that this mass is only 17 light-hours in diameter. So tell me, you freaking genius, what exactly is there?
> Nothing, or a large star or stars with no hydrogen cover, just the core, or cores; you imbeciles and frauds have no clue about how centrifugal force works at atomic or galactic levels.
>
> > > > > From your posts, it was clear that hundreds of physicists had calculated it in a complicated way for many years by estimating the masses of the stars orbiting there. If this were the case, it is an unbelievable scandal and simply incompetence (regardless of the fictitious black hole).
> >
> > > > There are very good reasons why physicists use spectral types to estimate stellar masses, it is because that method works!
> >
> > > In this case, it was unnecessary, the parameters of the orbits were enough. Similarly, you don't need the mass of the Earth (or any other planet) to determine the mass of the Sun, orbits data are enaught.
> > You know nothing about how all of this works... NOTHING! You are right in there with Arindam and Mitch, completely and utterly clueless.
> You frauds talk up the most bizarre nonsenses and so have no use for simple, clear and correct explanations that bust your frauds.
> Black holes are imaginary nonsenses to give credibility to the ridiculously wrong relativity theories.
>
Paul Alsing
May 27, 2023, 8:54:24 PM5/27/23
to
> > > > On the other hand, I believe that the promoted black hole in Sgr A* is fiction (there is no black hole there), which is paradoxically evidenced even by a photo of the surroundings of the alleged black hole with three forming stars....
> > > If there is no black hole at the center of our galaxy, then what exactly is the 4 million solar mass object there? We KNOW there is a 4-million solar mass object there because f the stars in orbit around it. We KNOW that this mass is only 17 light-hours in diameter. So tell me, you freaking genius, what exactly is there?
> > Nothing, or a large star or stars with no hydrogen cover, just the core, or cores; you imbeciles and frauds have no clue about how centrifugal force works at atomic or galactic levels.
> >
> I have explained many times what is there (dwarf globular cluster) and pointed out the premises. Extremely resistant to knowledge type, something confused him with 17 hours (M 86?).
Yes, you have claimed many times that there is a dwarf globular cluster at the center of the galaxy but you have provided ZERO evidence to support that claim. I pointed out that Omega Centauri (not a dwarf) has the required mass of 4 million solar masses, but it is 172 light-years in diameter.and may be the biggest globular cluster know... so *any* globular cluster that you can imagine is *not* the answer. The diameter of our black hole is only 16 million miles in diameter, which is about 17 light hours... it is *tiny*, but is still weighs about 4 million solar masses. Are you just stupid?
> I have explained many times what is there (dwarf globular cluster) and pointed out the premises. Extremely resistant to knowledge type, something confused him with 17 hours (M 86?).
> > > > > > From your posts, it was clear that hundreds of physicists had calculated it in a complicated way for many years by estimating the masses of the stars orbiting there. If this were the case, it is an unbelievable scandal and simply incompetence (regardless of the fictitious black hole).
> > >
> > > > > There are very good reasons why physicists use spectral types to estimate stellar masses, it is because that method works!
> > >
> > > > In this case, it was unnecessary, the parameters of the orbits were enough. Similarly, you don't need the mass of the Earth (or any other planet) to determine the mass of the Sun, orbits data are enaught.
> > > You know nothing about how all of this works... NOTHING! You are right in there with Arindam and Mitch, completely and utterly clueless.
> > You frauds talk up the most bizarre nonsenses and so have no use for simple, clear and correct explanations that bust your frauds.
> > Black holes are imaginary nonsenses to give credibility to the ridiculously wrong relativity theories.
> It seems that he still does not understand Kepler's 3rd general law and does not know how to apply it, he goes into denial and loses credibility...
Arindam, tell us again why there is zero pressure at the center of the Earth, and it is very cold there. We all need a good laugh every once in a while...
Arindam Banerjee
May 28, 2023, 10:54:00 PM5/28/23
to
> > > > On the other hand, I believe that the promoted black hole in Sgr A* is fiction (there is no black hole there), which is paradoxically evidenced even by a photo of the surroundings of the alleged black hole with three forming stars....
> > > If there is no black hole at the center of our galaxy, then what exactly is the 4 million solar mass object there? We KNOW there is a 4-million solar mass object there because f the stars in orbit around it. We KNOW that this mass is only 17 light-hours in diameter. So tell me, you freaking genius, what exactly is there?
> > Nothing, or a large star or stars with no hydrogen cover, just the core, or cores; you imbeciles and frauds have no clue about how centrifugal force works at atomic or galactic levels.
> >
> I have explained many times what is there (dwarf globular cluster) and pointed out the premises. Extremely resistant to knowledge type, something confused him with 17 hours (M 86?).
Arindam Banerjee
May 28, 2023, 11:00:12 PM5/28/23
to
> > >
> > I have explained many times what is there (dwarf globular cluster) and pointed out the premises. Extremely resistant to knowledge type, something confused him with 17 hours (M 86?).
> Yes, you have claimed many times that there is a dwarf globular cluster at the center of the galaxy but you have provided ZERO evidence to support that claim. I pointed out that Omega Centauri (not a dwarf) has the required mass of 4 million solar masses, but it is 172 light-years in diameter.and may be the biggest globular cluster know... so *any* globular cluster that you can imagine is *not* the answer. The diameter of our black hole is only 16 million miles in diameter, which is about 17 light hours... it is *tiny*, but is still weighs about 4 million solar masses. Are you just stupid?
> > > > > > > From your posts, it was clear that hundreds of physicists had calculated it in a complicated way for many years by estimating the masses of the stars orbiting there. If this were the case, it is an unbelievable scandal and simply incompetence (regardless of the fictitious black hole).
> > > >
> > > > > > There are very good reasons why physicists use spectral types to estimate stellar masses, it is because that method works!
> > > >
> > > > > In this case, it was unnecessary, the parameters of the orbits were enough. Similarly, you don't need the mass of the Earth (or any other planet) to determine the mass of the Sun, orbits data are enaught.
>
> > > > You know nothing about how all of this works... NOTHING! You are right in there with Arindam and Mitch, completely and utterly clueless.
>
> > > You frauds talk up the most bizarre nonsenses and so have no use for simple, clear and correct explanations that bust your frauds.
> > > Black holes are imaginary nonsenses to give credibility to the ridiculously wrong relativity theories.
> And your evidence for this claim is what, Arindam?
> > It seems that he still does not understand Kepler's 3rd general law and does not know how to apply it, he goes into denial and loses credibility...
> HA! I have forgotten more physics than either of you will ever know. You guys are quite a pair and should form a Mutual Admiration Society.
>
> Arindam, tell us again why there is zero pressure at the center of the Earth, and it is very cold there.
Tell me if you have heard of the Earth's magnetic field, and why do you think that happens.
> > I have explained many times what is there (dwarf globular cluster) and pointed out the premises. Extremely resistant to knowledge type, something confused him with 17 hours (M 86?).
> Yes, you have claimed many times that there is a dwarf globular cluster at the center of the galaxy but you have provided ZERO evidence to support that claim. I pointed out that Omega Centauri (not a dwarf) has the required mass of 4 million solar masses, but it is 172 light-years in diameter.and may be the biggest globular cluster know... so *any* globular cluster that you can imagine is *not* the answer. The diameter of our black hole is only 16 million miles in diameter, which is about 17 light hours... it is *tiny*, but is still weighs about 4 million solar masses. Are you just stupid?
> > > > > > > From your posts, it was clear that hundreds of physicists had calculated it in a complicated way for many years by estimating the masses of the stars orbiting there. If this were the case, it is an unbelievable scandal and simply incompetence (regardless of the fictitious black hole).
> > > >
> > > > > > There are very good reasons why physicists use spectral types to estimate stellar masses, it is because that method works!
> > > >
> > > > > In this case, it was unnecessary, the parameters of the orbits were enough. Similarly, you don't need the mass of the Earth (or any other planet) to determine the mass of the Sun, orbits data are enaught.
>
> > > > You know nothing about how all of this works... NOTHING! You are right in there with Arindam and Mitch, completely and utterly clueless.
>
> > > You frauds talk up the most bizarre nonsenses and so have no use for simple, clear and correct explanations that bust your frauds.
> > > Black holes are imaginary nonsenses to give credibility to the ridiculously wrong relativity theories.
> And your evidence for this claim is what, Arindam?
> > It seems that he still does not understand Kepler's 3rd general law and does not know how to apply it, he goes into denial and loses credibility...
> HA! I have forgotten more physics than either of you will ever know. You guys are quite a pair and should form a Mutual Admiration Society.
>
> Arindam, tell us again why there is zero pressure at the center of the Earth, and it is very cold there.
> We all need a good laugh every once in a while...
Paul Alsing
May 28, 2023, 11:38:31 PM5/28/23
to
Arindam Banerjee
May 28, 2023, 11:46:38 PM5/28/23
to
Volney
May 29, 2023, 1:27:19 AM5/29/23
to
fields is a cold superconducting core.
>> We all need a good laugh every once in a while...
> You guys make me sick.
>
>
BTW for an even better laugh, listen to Arindam claim the core of the
*SUN* is nearly absolute zero! (without evidence, of course)
Volney
May 29, 2023, 1:45:08 AM5/29/23
to
On 5/28/2023 11:00 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Sunday, 28 May 2023 at 10:54:24 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 2:55:31 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
>>> sobota, 27 maja 2023 o 09:46:08 UTC+2 Arindam Banerjee napisał(a):
>>>> On Saturday, 27 May 2023 at 11:28:45 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>> If there is no black hole at the center of our galaxy, then what exactly is the 4 million solar mass object there? We KNOW there is a 4-million solar mass object there because f the stars in orbit around it. We KNOW that this mass is only 17 light-hours in diameter. So tell me, you freaking genius, what exactly is there?
>>
>>>> Nothing, or a large star or stars with no hydrogen cover, just the core, or cores; you imbeciles and frauds have no clue about how centrifugal force works at atomic or galactic levels.
>> Arindam, I have a kumquat on the kitchen countertop that knows more physics than you do...
> What is pure nonsense is physics to you. Kumquats are smarter than you, for at least they do not have negative intelligence as you have.
I just want to hear Arindam tell us what it's like to lose to a kumquat
>> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 2:55:31 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
>>> sobota, 27 maja 2023 o 09:46:08 UTC+2 Arindam Banerjee napisał(a):
>>>> On Saturday, 27 May 2023 at 11:28:45 UTC+10, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>> If there is no black hole at the center of our galaxy, then what exactly is the 4 million solar mass object there? We KNOW there is a 4-million solar mass object there because f the stars in orbit around it. We KNOW that this mass is only 17 light-hours in diameter. So tell me, you freaking genius, what exactly is there?
>>
>>>> Nothing, or a large star or stars with no hydrogen cover, just the core, or cores; you imbeciles and frauds have no clue about how centrifugal force works at atomic or galactic levels.
>> Arindam, I have a kumquat on the kitchen countertop that knows more physics than you do...
> What is pure nonsense is physics to you. Kumquats are smarter than you, for at least they do not have negative intelligence as you have.
in a physics test.
Arindam Banerjee
May 29, 2023, 2:50:28 AM5/29/23
to
So far there is no other way to create a steady magnetic field without a continuously circulating steady current.
Continuously circulating currents happen from the lab demostrated effect of superconductivity.
Which is used in fast trains, btw.
Now, that happens when it is very cold, so resistance is near zero.
For the magnetic field to happen, there needs current, which needs cold.
There is zero pressure at the core, could be holey or hollow too. Zero pressure, zero temperature, nothing to squeeze around, no net force, pull from all around.
I have put it all very simply, but I doubt if it will penetrate the moronic skull of the moron Moroney.
If it did, it would not remain a moron.
> >> We all need a good laugh every once in a while...
> > You guys make me sick.
> Sick in the head? Are you blaming us for your mental illnesses?
Arindam Banerjee
May 29, 2023, 3:00:09 AM5/29/23
to
Enes Richard
May 30, 2023, 5:42:59 AM5/30/23
to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#/media/File:Eso2208-eht-mwe.tif
By the way, you have evidence of 3 new stars forming nearby. If there was a black hole, tidal forces would prevent to do stars. These 3 concentrations of hydrogen rule out a black hole.
It has also been proven to happen in the region of 2 rapidly spinning hydrogen rings, which are the result of (...). It has also been proven that these 2 rings match 2 groups of orbiting stars that formed from them. This evidence (which just happens and likes to me) was ignored...because there must be a black hole that wouldn't let this happen. Such scientific hypocrisy...
> > > > > > > From your posts, it was clear that hundreds of physicists had calculated it in a complicated way for many years by estimating the masses of the stars orbiting there. If this were the case, it is an unbelievable scandal and simply incompetence (regardless of the fictitious black hole).
> > > >
> > > > > > There are very good reasons why physicists use spectral types to estimate stellar masses, it is because that method works!
> > > >
> > > > > In this case, it was unnecessary, the parameters of the orbits were enough. Similarly, you don't need the mass of the Earth (or any other planet) to determine the mass of the Sun, orbits data are enaught.
>
> > > > You know nothing about how all of this works... NOTHING! You are right in there with Arindam and Mitch, completely and utterly clueless.
>
> > > You frauds talk up the most bizarre nonsenses and so have no use for simple, clear and correct explanations that bust your frauds.
> > > Black holes are imaginary nonsenses to give credibility to the ridiculously wrong relativity theories.
> And your evidence for this claim is what, Arindam?
> > It seems that he still does not understand Kepler's 3rd general law and does not know how to apply it, he goes into denial and loses credibility...
> HA! I have forgotten more physics than either of you will ever know. You guys are quite a pair and should form a Mutual Admiration Society.
>
Paul Alsing
May 30, 2023, 11:01:52 AM5/30/23
to
Volney
May 30, 2023, 12:37:09 PM5/30/23
to
On 5/30/2023 5:42 AM, Enes Richard wrote:
> By the way, you have evidence of 3 new stars forming nearby. If there was a black hole, tidal forces would prevent to do stars. These 3 concentrations of hydrogen rule out a black hole.
Where is your math which shows the strength of the tidal forces from a
> By the way, you have evidence of 3 new stars forming nearby. If there was a black hole, tidal forces would prevent to do stars. These 3 concentrations of hydrogen rule out a black hole.
black hole at the distance from the protostars? We need the math to show
the strong tidal forces ripping apart any star that tries to form. What,
you don't have any? You just blurted out that there's too much of a
tidal force without even checking whether that is true? Typical crank
behavior.
>
> It has also been proven to happen in the region of 2 rapidly spinning hydrogen rings, which are the result of (...). It has also been proven that these 2 rings match 2 groups of orbiting stars that formed from them. This evidence (which just happens and likes to me) was ignored...because there must be a black hole that wouldn't let this happen. Such scientific hypocrisy...
And your evidence is...?
> It has also been proven to happen in the region of 2 rapidly spinning hydrogen rings, which are the result of (...). It has also been proven that these 2 rings match 2 groups of orbiting stars that formed from them. This evidence (which just happens and likes to me) was ignored...because there must be a black hole that wouldn't let this happen. Such scientific hypocrisy...
>>>> You frauds talk up the most bizarre nonsenses and so have no use for simple, clear and correct explanations that bust your frauds.
>>>> Black holes are imaginary nonsenses to give credibility to the ridiculously wrong relativity theories.
>> And your evidence for this claim is what, Arindam?
>>> It seems that he still does not understand Kepler's 3rd general law and does not know how to apply it, he goes into denial and loses credibility...
>> HA! I have forgotten more physics than either of you will ever know. You guys are quite a pair and should form a Mutual Admiration Society.
>>
> Maybe try to forget this erroneous/useless knowledge that you present to a large extent, and try to recall the correct and useful knowledge. You will understand proto-scientific concepts easier.
Arindam Banerjee
May 30, 2023, 9:55:34 PM5/30/23
to
Enes Richard
Jun 1, 2023, 5:51:50 AM6/1/23
to
wtorek, 30 maja 2023 o 18:37:09 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):
> On 5/30/2023 5:42 AM, Enes Richard wrote:
>
> > By the way, you have evidence of 3 new stars forming nearby. If there was a black hole, tidal forces would prevent to do stars. These 3 concentrations of hydrogen rule out a black hole.
> Where is your math which shows the strength of the tidal forces from a
> black hole at the distance from the protostars? We need the math to show
> the strong tidal forces ripping apart any star that tries to form. What,
> you don't have any? You just blurted out that there's too much of a
> tidal force without even checking whether that is true? Typical crank
> behavior.
>
Scientific discovery is not about mindless calculations at every step, especially the step before breaking down an open door. Deduction, intuitive accuracy and associating all the circumstances in the case are decisive.
> On 5/30/2023 5:42 AM, Enes Richard wrote:
>
> > By the way, you have evidence of 3 new stars forming nearby. If there was a black hole, tidal forces would prevent to do stars. These 3 concentrations of hydrogen rule out a black hole.
> Where is your math which shows the strength of the tidal forces from a
> black hole at the distance from the protostars? We need the math to show
> the strong tidal forces ripping apart any star that tries to form. What,
> you don't have any? You just blurted out that there's too much of a
> tidal force without even checking whether that is true? Typical crank
> behavior.
>
In this case, calculations that overzealous scientists have already done can be used. They predicted a spectacular (with fireworks) bursting of the gas cloud G2 (estimated to be several times the mass of the Earth) as it approached the fictitious black hole Sgr A*, even at a distance of 6 times the distance of Neptune from the Sun. Since the hole is not real, nothing special happened. So this time, astronomers guess that maybe it is a double or triple star and change the estimated mass from a few Earth masses to several dozen solar masses - an increase in the mass of G2 over 3 million times (for consolation instead of fireworks)! This is how the scientific method works blindly in its full glory of celebrity and fuss, bloating...
So, since it was calculated that the tearing of the gas cloud by the tides (from 4 million solar masses) even 6 times further than Neptune from the Sun, it would be impossible to create 3 concentrations of hydrogen (and then stars) at a distance not greater than the orbit of Mercury. All this can be seen in the image of the surroundings of a fictitious black hole.
Paul Alsing
Jun 1, 2023, 10:23:03 AM6/1/23
to
=Alexander Pope
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are writing complete gibberish. You are just making it up as you go along, and what you offer here is almost 100% incorrect.
Get another hobby, physics is way beyond your current capabilities.
Enes Richard
Jun 1, 2023, 3:26:01 PM6/1/23
to
how much do you know from the correct 5% about the Universe
(95% is scientific speculation)? Science is speculating here (Sgr A*).
Don't jump up and don't inflate yourself (because your vein will burst),
because you have no basis, learn and write substantively or shut up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
"Tidal effects become particularly pronounced near small bodies of high mass,
such as neutron stars or black holes, where they are responsible for the "spaghettification"
of infalling matter."
https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/bad-astronomy-dust-cloud-g2-is-actually-three-stars-with-clouds-around-them
Paul Alsing
Jun 1, 2023, 10:58:39 PM6/1/23
to
On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 12:26:01 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> czwartek, 1 czerwca 2023 o 16:23:03 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 2:51:50 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> > > wtorek, 30 maja 2023 o 18:37:09 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):
> > > > On 5/30/2023 5:42 AM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > By the way, you have evidence of 3 new stars forming nearby. If there was a black hole, tidal forces would prevent to do stars. These 3 concentrations of hydrogen rule out a black hole.
> > > > Where is your math which shows the strength of the tidal forces from a
> > > > black hole at the distance from the protostars? We need the math to show
> > > > the strong tidal forces ripping apart any star that tries to form. What,
> > > > you don't have any? You just blurted out that there's too much of a
> > > > tidal force without even checking whether that is true? Typical crank
> > > > behavior.
> > > >
> > > Scientific discovery is not about mindless calculations at every step, especially the step before breaking down an open door. Deduction, intuitive accuracy and associating all the circumstances in the case are decisive.
> > >
> > > In this case, calculations that overzealous scientists have already done can be used. They predicted a spectacular (with fireworks) bursting of the gas cloud G2 (estimated to be several times the mass of the Earth) as it approached the fictitious black hole Sgr A*, even at a distance of 6 times the distance of Neptune from the Sun. Since the hole is not real, nothing special happened. So this time, astronomers guess that maybe it is a double or triple star and change the estimated mass from a few Earth masses to several dozen solar masses - an increase in the mass of G2 over 3 million times (for consolation instead of fireworks)! This is how the scientific method works blindly in its full glory of celebrity and fuss, bloating...
> > >
> > > So, since it was calculated that the tearing of the gas cloud by the tides (from 4 million solar masses) even 6 times further than Neptune from the Sun, it would be impossible to create 3 concentrations of hydrogen (and then stars) at a distance not greater than the orbit of Mercury. All this can be seen in the image of the surroundings of a fictitious black hole.
> > “A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”
> > =Alexander Pope
> >
> > You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are writing complete gibberish. You are just making it up as you go along, and what you offer here is almost 100% incorrect.
> >
> > Get another hobby, physics is way beyond your current capabilities.
> >
> No substantive answer, no arguments. Hands waving, invectives.
This is the just the pot calling the kettle black. This EXACTLY what I have been telling you! You make all these claims without a shred of evidence and then you claim the same of me... except that I have hundreds of years of evidence to offer in support of mainstream physics, evidence that you are unable to refute! The literature is full of evidence, if only you were to look for it!
> czwartek, 1 czerwca 2023 o 16:23:03 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 2:51:50 AM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> > > wtorek, 30 maja 2023 o 18:37:09 UTC+2 Volney napisał(a):
> > > > On 5/30/2023 5:42 AM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > By the way, you have evidence of 3 new stars forming nearby. If there was a black hole, tidal forces would prevent to do stars. These 3 concentrations of hydrogen rule out a black hole.
> > > > Where is your math which shows the strength of the tidal forces from a
> > > > black hole at the distance from the protostars? We need the math to show
> > > > the strong tidal forces ripping apart any star that tries to form. What,
> > > > you don't have any? You just blurted out that there's too much of a
> > > > tidal force without even checking whether that is true? Typical crank
> > > > behavior.
> > > >
> > > Scientific discovery is not about mindless calculations at every step, especially the step before breaking down an open door. Deduction, intuitive accuracy and associating all the circumstances in the case are decisive.
> > >
> > > In this case, calculations that overzealous scientists have already done can be used. They predicted a spectacular (with fireworks) bursting of the gas cloud G2 (estimated to be several times the mass of the Earth) as it approached the fictitious black hole Sgr A*, even at a distance of 6 times the distance of Neptune from the Sun. Since the hole is not real, nothing special happened. So this time, astronomers guess that maybe it is a double or triple star and change the estimated mass from a few Earth masses to several dozen solar masses - an increase in the mass of G2 over 3 million times (for consolation instead of fireworks)! This is how the scientific method works blindly in its full glory of celebrity and fuss, bloating...
> > >
> > > So, since it was calculated that the tearing of the gas cloud by the tides (from 4 million solar masses) even 6 times further than Neptune from the Sun, it would be impossible to create 3 concentrations of hydrogen (and then stars) at a distance not greater than the orbit of Mercury. All this can be seen in the image of the surroundings of a fictitious black hole.
> > “A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”
> > =Alexander Pope
> >
> > You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are writing complete gibberish. You are just making it up as you go along, and what you offer here is almost 100% incorrect.
> >
> > Get another hobby, physics is way beyond your current capabilities.
> >
> No substantive answer, no arguments. Hands waving, invectives.
> And you,
> how much do you know from the correct 5% about the Universe
> (95% is scientific speculation)? Science is speculating here (Sgr A*).
> Don't jump up and don't inflate yourself (because your vein will burst),
> because you have no basis, learn and write substantively or shut up.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
> "Tidal effects become particularly pronounced near small bodies of high mass,
> such as neutron stars or black holes, where they are responsible for the "spaghettification"
> of infalling matter."
Exactly correct... but what does this have to do with S2? S2 is far away from being close enough to being in danger, it is ORBITING that black hole, just like everything else in that neighborhood. You speak of things about which you are completely clueless.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
> "Tidal effects become particularly pronounced near small bodies of high mass,
> such as neutron stars or black holes, where they are responsible for the "spaghettification"
> of infalling matter."
>
> https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/bad-astronomy-dust-cloud-g2-is-actually-three-stars-with-clouds-around-them
That is a really interesting article, but it does not offer anything that would negate the existence of the black hole. It is just another mystery concerning the black hole, another bit of observational data that will help modify the existing model and eventually lead to a better understanding about just what is going on there. This is good news for physics, not bad news. You just do not "get it", this is *exactly* how science works.
You don't know what you don't know... as always. Your lack of education is these matters is a handicap for you in this forum. Your guesses are not science.
Enes Richard
Jun 2, 2023, 4:08:57 AM6/2/23
to
but you negate anything that would disturb the cosmological bliss.
Your "education" is a burden for you that will not allow you to bounce off the physical bottom. People like you can't heal sick physics. It is said that only a madman can do that! Enough! crazy.
> >
> > https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/bad-astronomy-dust-cloud-g2-is-actually-three-stars-with-clouds-around-them
>
> That is a really interesting article, but it does not offer anything that would negate the existence of the black hole. It is just another mystery concerning the black hole, another bit of observational data that will help modify the existing model and eventually lead to a better understanding about just what is going on there. This is good news for physics, not bad news. You just do not "get it", this is *exactly* how science works.
>
> You don't know what you don't know... as always. Your lack of education is these matters is a handicap for you in this forum. Your guesses are not science.
>
Your "education" is a burden for you that will not allow you to bounce off the physical bottom.
> > https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/bad-astronomy-dust-cloud-g2-is-actually-three-stars-with-clouds-around-them
>
> That is a really interesting article, but it does not offer anything that would negate the existence of the black hole. It is just another mystery concerning the black hole, another bit of observational data that will help modify the existing model and eventually lead to a better understanding about just what is going on there. This is good news for physics, not bad news. You just do not "get it", this is *exactly* how science works.
>
> You don't know what you don't know... as always. Your lack of education is these matters is a handicap for you in this forum. Your guesses are not science.
>
People like you can't heal sick physics. It is said that only a madman can do that...Enough crazy.
Arindam Banerjee
Jun 2, 2023, 5:22:50 AM6/2/23
to
Enes Richard
Jun 2, 2023, 6:21:40 PM6/2/23
to
Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of trained/programmed scientists a
re processing (like earthworms) scientific soil for those who will come
to pull weeds, plow, sow and plant new trees that will give good fruit...
Arindam Banerjee
Jun 2, 2023, 10:28:53 PM6/2/23
to
> Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of trained/programmed scientists a
> re processing (like earthworms) scientific soil for those who will come
> to pull weeds, plow, sow and plant new trees that will give good fruit...
Paul Alsing
Jun 2, 2023, 10:53:31 PM6/2/23
to
On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 3:21:40 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> But shouldn't we look for the positives even in hopeless situations?
Exactly what hopeless situations are you speaking of?
> But shouldn't we look for the positives even in hopeless situations?
> Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of trained/programmed scientists a
> re processing (like earthworms) scientific soil for those who will come
> to pull weeds, plow, sow and plant new trees that will give good fruit...
You remain clueless...
Enes Richard
Jun 5, 2023, 7:26:50 AM6/5/23
to
sobota, 3 czerwca 2023 o 04:53:31 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a):
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 3:21:40 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
>
> > But shouldn't we look for the positives even in hopeless situations?
> Exactly what hopeless situations are you speaking of?
>
I am writing about the situation of a lifeguard who throws lifebuoys to a drowning man
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 3:21:40 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
>
> > But shouldn't we look for the positives even in hopeless situations?
> Exactly what hopeless situations are you speaking of?
>
... and he continues to wave his arms and would like to drown the lifeguard.
> > Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of trained/programmed scientists a
> > re processing (like earthworms) scientific soil for those who will come
> > to pull weeds, plow, sow and plant new trees that will give good fruit...
> Why would modern scientists need re-processing?
>
> You remain clueless...
>
without discarding those that do not fit current science policy...(CMB, Sgr A*, SN 1987a...)
Enes Richard
Jun 5, 2023, 7:49:22 AM6/5/23
to
of good will who will contribute to the revival of nuclear astrophysics.
p.s.
I have several professions, I am specialy a engineer constructor,
inventor and discoverer...creditor of civilization.
0 new messages