@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: This article is so amusing. Look like GR is getting updated again.. Yes Lou, This is what science does, it follows the evidence and updates as new evidence becomes available. (The graphic in the article should really have one more column to the left with all stages of the universe the same size to depict the original "creationist" fixed universe) Despite your oft repeated straw man attacks, I know that the scientists do not have all of the answers, not yet anyway. Has it not occurred to you yet that it was mainstream scientists using GR that discovered the discrepancy between the decelerating universe model and the evidence supporting an accelerating expansion? Are you also unaware that while there is apparently too much energy for the current cosmological constant, there is a similar level of shortfall in the amount of energy required to make your favourite fantasy work. You are out by about the same amount in the opposite direction. Remember my point about replacement theories needing to be not only different but better?

This is tweaking and existing theory to fit newer information. It still means its wrong. Just less wrong for now. It ADMITS what the gravity=radiation pressure theories have been slapping you in he face with: The CONSTANT ISN'T CONSTANT!

You also forget Gravity=radiation pressure can reproduce everything GR does with NONE of the holes.

@Amiboy

Quote:

Amiboy wrote: @Lou You seem to have a massive lack in your capacity to read AND understand what you are reading. Was going to post about what you haven't understood from the article but I just cant do it as I know that you wont listen nor understand and you will probably just end up throwing insults at me in a vain attempt to look good and end up getting banned again. At the end of the day it looks like you are again, pulling words out of articles you clearly don't understand and then setting them out to try and prove your CRAP. I don't think you should be presenting articles to people you dont understand as you will only get torn to shreds.

You're totally ignorable because you've presented nothing and have done nothing but degrade me in your own special way. Go back under the bridge.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: Something new! And it matches Einsteins predictions for GR.

Why don't you read this updated more detailed article and stop getting your science from headlines:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/big-rumors-circulating-about-detection-of-primordial-gravity-waves/

I need remind you that G=RP reproduces GR and succeeds in filling its holes.

Let me point out some choice quotes that I'm sure you'll ignore:
Quote:

However, inflation is less a theory than a set of models with differences in details; worse still, other theories produce similar predictions and match the observations we have so far.

Quote:

However, though astronomers have known for decades that gravitational waves exist, the evidence for them is indirect, so few expect to measure primordial gravitational radiation directly in the foreseeable future.

Since gravity waves are pressure waves, I agree - they exist.

Quote:

The BICEP2 researchers proposed a relatively simple modification to the behavior of inflation to reconcile the two numbers and show why they don't agree, but we'll have to see if the cosmology community finds this modification acceptable.

...and the last two paragraphs say it all but I'll leave that to you...

Oh! Here's a shocker:
http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=279
"Radiation pressure is the best candidate of dark energy"

@Lou

Egads this thread again?

Oh! Here's a shocker:
Quote:

Lou wrote: http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=279 "Radiation pressure is the best candidate of dark energy" "This Article has not yet been peer-reviewed This Article was published on 17th September, 2011 at 07:35:19 and has been viewed 1185 times"

I'm all for the place 'Where ideas are free' but let's remember if we're looking for science then the ideas must be not only peer-reviewed but tested against experimentation.

What we have here is someone published an article, it hasn't been peer-reviewed nor has it been tested. Without those things we cannot accept this as a truth. But, neither does it mean it's false. Without collaborative review, testing, and sussing we are unable to assign a value to his free idea.

Love Philica, there are always good reads there. But, just because they're ideas doesn't mean they get a free ride to being a truth.

@Lou
Quote:

You also forget Gravity=radiation pressure can reproduce everything GR does with NONE of the holes.[/quote [quote]I need remind you that G=RP reproduces GR and succeeds in filling its holes.

Nice assertion, now have you ever heard of a word spelled E. V. I. D. E. N. C. E. Look it up in a dictionary and you will learn what it is that you are lacking.
Referring back to the link about getting the maths right you commented
"the vacuum energy being 120 orders of magnitude higher than expected" as an explanation of your stance that "All science is wrong therefore Nibiru does exist" I would point out that there is indeed a discrepancy between the measured values for the constant, and the calculated values for the relationship between QED and the aforementioned constant. Has it never occurred to you that the measured values may actually be correct and the assumed importance of QED may actually be somewhat overstated. Also note the language used.Quote:

Enter the new work by Nemanja Kaloper (UC-Davis) and Antonio Padilla (University of Nottingham), who have proposed a modification to general relativity that naturally generates a small cosmological constant.

Note that they have proposed a modification to GR. Nothing evidenced or proved, and GR not scrapped and replaced with your Clearly Ridiculous Asinine Postulates.

Quote:

Oh! Here's a shocker: http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=279 "Radiation pressure is the best candidate of dark energy"

A very interesting article, but you seem to have missed the following point
"The radiation pressure from Sun to Earth is 4.6uPa. It is a very tiny amount compared to the gravity from Sun to Earth. It can almost be neglected compared to gravity.". This is what I have been trying to explain to you since you started spouting your "Gravity=RP" CRAP. Although the author makes huge claims from the equation P= sT^4/c, substituting the letter s for the normal σ and T for the temperature in K, he overlooks the fact that σ=5.670373×10^−8 W m^−2 K^−4, meaning that the temperature part of the equation cancels out. The greater radiation pressure within a star is due to the fact that there is more light inside a star than there is in the depths of intergalactic space. The universe is made up of a few bright objects in a very dark box, which if you look very briefly appears to fit your explanation of why the universe is expanding, but when you put two stars in close proximity they do not rush apart as your "Gravity=RP" CRAP would require, they coalesce.

Coming back to the idea of discovering waves, here are some more waves. I linked to this particular article for the headline, there are other more "scientific" publications that I could have chosen for the link. Isn't it amazing that astronomers can see titanic waves that are a whole 2cm high, but have yet to be able to find a brown dwarf star in our own backyard.

P. S. Here is the nearest brown dwarf, and it isn't Nibiru

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

Your hear no evidence, see no evidence, speak no evidence banter is older than you.

The radiation pressure of the universe > the sun. Your counter-"evidence" is always crap.

For anyone interested in some actual science rather than the close-minded ramblings of a caveman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy47OQxUBvw

Here multi-dimensional time explains away the dark crap and the cosmic microwave back ground...among other things...

Interestingly it fits in with my "the universe is a black hole" belief: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/326086

Basically, the CMB is tired light combining into something more dense then decaying back into the universe...

@Lou

Quote:

The radiation pressure of the universe > the sun. Your counter-"evidence" is always crap.

Did you ever hear of something called the Voyager space probe?
Why does the meaning of the term measured values still evade you?
Is it because the measured levels and directional nature of received energy shows your C. R. A. P. up for what it is?
Are you still denying the fact that these two bright spheres in a dark box are moving toward each other, when your C. R. A. P. would have them moving apart at an appreciable fraction of speed c

Quote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy47OQxUBvw

Nice set of assertions, but like those of Brandenburg et.al. the question remains. Does the "mathematics" match real world observations? If not it is as relevant as the fairies at the bottom of my garden.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: The radiation pressure of the universe > the sun. Your counter-"evidence" is always crap. Did you ever hear of something called the Voyager space probe? Why does the meaning of the term measured values still evade you? Is it because the measured levels and directional nature of received energy shows your C. R. A. P. up for what it is? Are you still denying the fact that these two bright spheres in a dark box are moving toward each other, when your C. R. A. P. would have them moving apart at an appreciable fraction of speed c

pathetic...

Quote:

Quote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy47OQxUBvw Nice set of assertions, but like those of Brandenburg et.al. the question remains. Does the "mathematics" match real world observations? If not it is as relevant as the fairies at the bottom of my garden.

...because relativity isn't an assertion that undergoes constant massaging...
funny how you forget that real galactic observations is where relativity fails...not to mention the atomic and sub atomic levels...

you won't admit it's a bad approximation because of your biased close-minded beliefs...and for you belief is all it is because you bend over backwards with incompetent counters to the reality of radiation pressure...

Once again this thread is way past 30 pages, so locking this one.

Part 4 is located here.

Please carry on there.

_________________
Moxee
AmigaOne X1000
AmigaOne XE G4
I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.