Jump to content
Science Forums

Pmb

Members
  • Content Count

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Pmb last won the day on September 1 2015

Pmb had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Pmb

  • Rank
    Curious
  • Birthday 10/25/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Boston
  • Interests
    Physics, Math, tutoring, discussing math and physics, enjoying the sites and night life of Boston and Cambridge
  1. I'm not flaming you. I'm warning members of this forum to beware of the fact that most of the posts you create are nonsense, such as this one. You started this thread by posting numerous symbols whose meaning cannot be deduced from what you wrote, although you'll insist otherwise probably claiming that those who can't figure it out are dumb.
  2. With this nonsense of a post and the fact that the same exact post was posted in The Naked Scientists forum I finally know who you are. Note to my fellow members: this member will rarely, if ever, make any sense whatsoever. He quite often ignores simple facts in physics and declares himself right on too numerous occasions regardless of the fact that 100% of the physics community holds otherwise. Never expect anything logical from him and expect insults. E.g. he flamed me when I explained that space and expand and contract meaning that space can be created and destroyed. He knows absolutely n
  3. Is it possible that RbM and Ryndanangnysen are the same people?
  4. Why? Why is believing that we went to the moon so fantastic to you? Do you know nothing about science and engineering and for that reason can't grasp how it can e done? Where's your evidence? Where's your argument demonstrating that what you said is reasonably correct?
  5. Ryndanangnysen wrote - Are you sure?? It turned out some where just fake! which is a lie. People who make such claims do so without providing evidence because it's wrong and as such there is no evidence of the claim Ryndanangnysen wrote - In orbit around the earth, mate! You've once again provided no basis for this accusation. Merely saying something is not evidence that what you said it's true. In this case ham radio operators listened in on astronauts in the Apollo-11 capsules as they went to the Moon. It's easy to determine that the transmissions were not from Apollo-11 as it circled the
  6. Just because I explained in detail why your reasoning process is far from being reasonable is no basis whatsoever to assert that I'm brainwashed. In fact I've posted nothing here that could be taken as evidence of being brainwashed. I fact your response here indicates that you don't know what it means to be brainwashed. By definition, brainwashing is to affect a person's mind by using extreme mental pressure or any other mind-affecting process. There has never been anything close to this in my life. You certainly can't make that claim based only on the fact that I used sound reasoning to sho
  7. If that's true then provide evidence that she and I were the one's who were lied to and not you. I haven't seen any attempt by you to do that as of yet.
  8. When someone makes an assertion so challenging to widely accepted beliefs as done here claiming that we never went to the moon it requires a great deal of evidence to back it up. Nobody in their right mind and who knows how to reason properly would never accept such an assertion as "We never went to the Moon." But nowhere in this thread have I seen any such evidence supporting such a claim. In fact all we've been given so far as the claim "We never went to the moon!" and simply making a claim in no way justify believing it. In fact when I gave evidence what we did in deed go to the moon all we
  9. Actually you're quite wrong. It does prove that people were on the moon. That's what makes it a valid argument. While lasers can be bounced off the moon without those mirrors the mirrors allow us to get much greater precision measurements with the mirror. Ryndanangnysen's fault here is that all he did is make claims. That's not science. To be science one has to back it up with evidence.
  10. The Bible is not a physics textbook. It was written long before people knew that the sun was a star. However, if you feel the need to think of the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge (which it surely isn't) then all that says is that God created the star near the Earth first and called it "Sun" and then created all the other stars but didn't name them. That's quite wrong. If that were true then every place on Earth would have day light since the light from anyplace inside a sphere lands on the entire surface area inside the sphere. It also follows that the sun wouldn't rise and set be
  11. Pyrotex - You're right in that length contraction and time dilation are very different. Not only do they have very different physical meanings but their relationship between two frames S and S' are T' = T/sqrt[1- v^2/c^2] L' = L*sqrt[1- v^2/c^2] Where T = proper time and L = proper length. So as anybody can readily see, they're very different. As I've said many times, A-wal's grasp of this subject is very weak. This is just another example of it.
  12. xyz - All galaxies moving away from each other is not space expanding is it now, is science trying to say that they observe bigger gaps between masses? I'll say this again; it's not that its irrational to say that space is expanding. The problem lies in your ignorance of general relativity and cosmology. E.g. you don't know what it means for space to expand. You keep looking for something physical like a rubber sheet to stretch. That's the error in your reasoning. Frankly its irritating discussing this with you since you make claims that all of we physicists are wrong and wrong in the exact
  13. xyz - There is a lot that goes into observations than just the fact that there is a cosmological redshift. What's important is the exact nature of the redshift as a function of the distance between galaxies. That's where Hubble's law comes in. If you really want to get into it then read this page: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l10_p4.html
  14. Craig - There are other types of geometric objects defined on Minkowski space, not simply 4-vectors. The following are examples: the metric tensor, the Faraday tensor (aka EM tensor), the stress-energy-momentum tensor and the angular momentum density tensor readily come to mind.
  15. xyz - I never avoided the explanation. I simply choose not to repeat myself. I already described what it means for space to expand, i.e. all galaxies moving away from each other. There's more to it than that of course but I'm unable to cut and paste URLs making it very difficult for me to reference pages. I said that we know that space is expanding because we observe all galaxies moving away from each other and there are galaxies whose cosmological redshift is so high that it can only mean that the galaxy is moving away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. That can only happen
×
×
  • Create New...