• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Moses asks science

J

jes-us

Active Member
exchemist said:
Nope. My Theorist/Sustainer/ANewDawn/James Blunt etc etc,[ yawn, snore] detector has just gone off.

So instead, adopting my sinister thought policeman persona, I have to ask, how's your neurological reference frame doing these days ?

Arf arf.:laughing:
Click to expand...
??? You are a strange member for sure .
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
jes-us said:
Tell me the exact distance to the moon or the sun ? The exact mass or components of the moon ? I have the same box of science as you , I know very well the distances are an approximation the same as the mass , not an exact measure. So please don't post , making out your box of science has different contents than mine .
Click to expand...
Everything measurement in science has some error range.

Mass of Moon ≈ 7.348 × 10²² kg
Mass of Earth ≈ 5.972 × 10²⁴ kg

The orbit isn't exactly circular but averages 385,000 km.
 
J

jes-us

Active Member
ratiocinator said:
Everything measurement in science has some error range.

Mass of Moon ≈ 7.348 × 10²² kg
Mass of Earth ≈ 5.972 × 10²⁴ kg

The orbit isn't exactly circular but averages 385,000 km.
Click to expand...
Mass of the moon and mass of the Earth , there is a massive margin for error because we don't know the entire contents . Some materials are denser etc .
The moon could be 90% hollow for all we know and we don't know if the Earth has an hollow all not . As I said it easy to show the equation is falsifiable .

I'm not being awkward here , I have a scaling system of 1/10 of scientific accuracy .


This equation gets about 5/10 reliable and accuracy rated from me .
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
ChristineM said:
Yes.

You mentioned the magic words "huge mass"
Click to expand...
1700041658795.png



:joycat::joycat:
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
jes-us said:
''Space-time can be thought of as a 'fabric' in which the objects of the Universe are embedded.''

www.esa.int

Space-time as an elastic fabric

The collision of distant black holes generates gravitational waves, or ripples in 'space-time'. Space-time can be thought of as a 'fabric' in which the objects of the Universe are embedded.
www.esa.int
Click to expand...
How does any of that justify your obviously absurd and scientifically illiterate claims?

jes-us said:
Please stop saying I am talking gibberish when it is your own failure to understand .

Maybe I overestimate other scientists ability to understand...
Click to expand...
irony.gif

jes-us said:
Are you saying space-time is fake and ESA , NASA and Einstein are all lying ?
Click to expand...
Nope. Nothing they have said justifies any of your gibberish.

It's obvious that you have zero understanding of current science and don't know how to use mathematics in the scientific context. This means that it is impossible for you to construct any valid new hypotheses.

jes-us said:
The moon could be 90% hollow for all we know and we don't know if the Earth has an hollow all not .
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

jes-us said:
As I said it easy to show the equation is falsifiable .
Click to expand...
All of science should be falsifiable. Yet another demonstration of ignorance.

Actually this one has been falsified (by general relativity) but it is still an extremely accurate approximation for most situation and is much simpler than GR, which is why it's still used all the time, in endless applications.

jes-us said:
This equation gets about 5/10 reliable and accuracy rated from me .
Click to expand...
Who do you think cares about your scientifically illiterate assessment? :shrug:
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
jes-us said:
Well that doesn't work for me, you'll have to provide far more evidence than hearsay .
Click to expand...

You think gravity is "hearsay"? :tearsofjoy:

jes-us said:
Why not tectonic plate shift at regular intervals ?

Tides are very similar and could be viewed as a small Tsunami
Click to expand...

You might want to read up a bit.

moon.nasa.gov

Tides - NASA Science

Animations to explain the science behind how the Moon affects the tides on Earth
moon.nasa.gov moon.nasa.gov
 
J

jes-us

Active Member
ratiocinator said:
How does any of that justify your obviously absurd and scientifically illiterate claims?


irony.gif


Nope. Nothing they have said justifies any of your gibberish.

It's obvious that you have zero understanding of current science and don't know how to use mathematics in the scientific context. This means that it is impossible for you to construct any valid new hypotheses.


Nonsense.


All of science should be falsifiable. Yet another demonstration of ignorance.

Actually this one has been falsified (by general relativity) but it is still an extremely accurate approximation for most situation and is much simpler than GR, which is why it's still used all the time, in endless applications.


Who do you think cares about your scientifically illiterate assessment? :shrug:
Click to expand...
If I was talking nonesense then I am sure you can explain the entire composite of the moon and earth ?

Stop lying to yourself . the equation is garbage .

My formula γmax=1:1 is correct for space-time or if you like I will switch it for a Higgs field because it would be the same formula .

I am sorry but space-time curvature etc cannot work unless my formula is applied . My formula confirms space-time .


The conserved point energy has to be light because space-time cannot conserve charge .

Now are you going to bother listening and discussing the new stuff or are you going keep on being defensive , keeping your box closed ?

If I am wasting my time , I might as well stick to talking in religion threads , ignoring sciences ignorance for ever .
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
jes-us said:
If I was talking nonesense then I am sure you can explain the entire composite of the moon and earth ?
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard of something called 'google'?

jes-us said:
Stop lying to yourself . the equation is garbage .
Click to expand...
I already pointed out a link that shows it's used in orbital mechanics (#41) and one that shows it explains Kepler's laws (#91). It also explains the constancy of the acceleration due to gravity at earth's surface. It also governs the orbits of satellites, and the trajectory of unpowered projectiles, and, of course apples falling from trees.

It's been in use for hundreds of yours. You just keep on demonstrating total ignorance of science.

jes-us said:
My formula γmax=1:1 is correct for space-time or if you like I will switch it for a Higgs field because it would be the same formula .
Click to expand...
It doesn't even mean anything. It's total nonsense. By all means switch to the Higgs, I could do with a laugh!

jes-us said:
I am sorry but space-time curvature etc cannot work unless my formula is applied . My formula confirms space-time .
Click to expand...
I've actually done the basic maths for GR and space-time 'curvature', so I know that your claim is purest male bovine excreta.

jes-us said:
Now are you going to bother listening and discussing the new stuff or are you going keep on being defensive...
Click to expand...
The moment you post something that makes the slightest bit of actual scientific sense, I'm happy to discuss it. There is nothing to be defensive about. You are clearly totally ignorant of science.

@exchemist seems to be right, I recognise the signs now. We've spoken before when you had another identity and you were just as clueless and arrogant.

jes-us said:
They use rockets to put satellites in orbit , it is a certain radius they have to be at , nothing to do with that equation...
Click to expand...
More ignorance. To place a satellite in a particular orbit you need to know the gravitational force it will experience, and that is given by the equation.

jes-us said:
...which isn't even a gravity equation .
Click to expand...
lol.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top