DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
<form
action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr"
method="post"
target="_top">
<input
type="hidden"
name="cmd"
value="_s-xclick">
<input
type="hidden"
name="hosted_button_id"
value="DKL7ADEKRVUBL">
<input
type="image"
src="https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif"
border="0"
name="submit"
alt="PayPal
- The safer, easier way to pay
online!">
<img
alt=""
border="0"
src="https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif"
width="1"
height="1">
</form>
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Flat Earth (click here)
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5349--------------------------------------------------
Re: The forum owner claims I'm a scammer because I use adaptive
optics
DIR By: guest8
Date: May 2, 2019, 7:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: patrick jane link ---
>
> To be clear, the title of the thread is a lie. The owner of
this forum claims that LX200 is being scammed by the
manufacturers of this fantasy space cadet equipment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please Subscribe! Discord Sucks! Join my Forums for
discussion, debate and fellowship - FREE
> [shadow=red,left]PayPal Donations :[/shadow]
HTML https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
> Flat Earth Forums :
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
> Theology Forums :
HTML https://theologyforums.com/index.php
> YouTube :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
> YouTube Back-Up Channel :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg
> [color=orange]BitChute : [/color]
HTML https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
> [glow=red,2,300]Pinterest :[/glow]
HTML https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
> [glow=red,2,300][color=blue]Linkedin :[/glow][/color]
HTML https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
>
--- End Quote ---
[shadow=blue,left]Interesting.....
Blade[/shadow]
#Post#: 5350--------------------------------------------------
Re: The forum owner claims I'm a scammer because I use adaptive
optics
DIR By: patrick jane
Date: May 2, 2019, 7:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bladerunner link ---
>
> [quote author=patrick jane link=topic=409.msg5348#msg5348
date=1556836747]
> To be clear, the title of the thread is a lie. The owner of
this forum claims that LX200 is being scammed by the
manufacturers of this fantasy space cadet equipment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please Subscribe! Discord Sucks! Join my Forums for
discussion, debate and fellowship - FREE
> [shadow=red,left]PayPal Donations :[/shadow]
HTML https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
> Flat Earth Forums :
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
> Theology Forums :
HTML https://theologyforums.com/index.php
> YouTube :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
> YouTube Back-Up Channel :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg
> [color=orange]BitChute : [/color]
HTML https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
> [glow=red,2,300]Pinterest :[/glow]
HTML https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
> [glow=red,2,300][color=blue]Linkedin :[/glow][/color]
HTML https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
>
--- End Quote ---
[shadow=blue,left]Interesting.....
Blade[/shadow]
[/quote]Well Blade, I could be wrong of course but I do not
believe people are seeing "galaxies" from their backyards. NASA
uses CGI and artists' renderings, they modify and enhance the
images of deep space. LX200 very well does see "light" and
"lights" but they are not galaxies in my opinion and therefore
are FAKE. :o ;D :D ;) :)
#Post#: 5352--------------------------------------------------
Re: The forum owner claims I'm a scammer because I use adaptive
optics
DIR By: guest8
Date: May 2, 2019, 7:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: patrick jane link ---
>
> [quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=409.msg5349#msg5349
date=1556841861]
> [quote author=patrick jane link=topic=409.msg5348#msg5348
date=1556836747]
> To be clear, the title of the thread is a lie. The owner of
this forum claims that LX200 is being scammed by the
manufacturers of this fantasy space cadet equipment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please Subscribe! Discord Sucks! Join my Forums for
discussion, debate and fellowship - FREE
> [shadow=red,left]PayPal Donations :[/shadow]
HTML https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
> Flat Earth Forums :
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
> Theology Forums :
HTML https://theologyforums.com/index.php
> YouTube :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
> YouTube Back-Up Channel :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg
> [color=orange]BitChute : [/color]
HTML https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
> [glow=red,2,300]Pinterest :[/glow]
HTML https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
> [glow=red,2,300][color=blue]Linkedin :[/glow][/color]
HTML https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
>
--- End Quote ---
[shadow=blue,left]Interesting.....
Blade[/shadow]
[/quote]Well Blade, I could be wrong of course but I do not
believe people are seeing "galaxies" from their backyards. NASA
uses CGI and artists' renderings, they modify and enhance the
images of deep space. LX200 very well does see "light" and
"lights" but they are not galaxies in my opinion and therefore
are FAKE. :o ;D :D ;) :)
[/quote]
[shadow=blue,left]
LOL, the spell continues over many!
Blade[/shadow]
#Post#: 5373--------------------------------------------------
Re: The forum owner claims I'm a scammer because I use adaptive
optics
DIR By: patrick jane
Date: May 3, 2019, 8:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I guess ol LX200 had enough. I'd like him to post more of his
beautiful space stuff, millions of light years away. With his
expensive equipment. :D ;D ;) :) 8)
#Post#: 5375--------------------------------------------------
Re: The forum owner claims I'm a scammer because I use adaptive
optics
DIR By: guest8
Date: May 3, 2019, 11:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: patrick jane link ---
>
> I guess ol LX200 had enough. I'd like him to post more of his
beautiful space stuff, millions of light years away. With his
expensive equipment. :D ;D ;) :) 8)
>
--- End Quote ---
[shadow=blue,left]I think the site is better off without him.
Blade[/shadow]
#Post#: 5428--------------------------------------------------
Re: The forum owner claims I'm a scammer because I use adaptive
optics
DIR By: guest74
Date: May 7, 2019, 9:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: patrick jane link ---
>
> To be clear, the title of the thread is a lie. The owner of
this forum claims that LX200 is being scammed by the
manufacturers of this fantasy space cadet equipment.
>
--- End Quote ---
I am vouching for the veracity of my equipment, I've seen what
it is and how it works, I've even taken it all apart and put it
back together. There is no scam there. It's just a tilt tip
mirror, there is no way for it to fake the images, so by saying
it is you're calling me a liar.
#Post#: 5429--------------------------------------------------
Re: The forum owner claims I'm a scammer because I use adaptive
optics
DIR By: guest74
Date: May 7, 2019, 9:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: patrick jane link ---
>
> [quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=409.msg5349#msg5349
date=1556841861]
> [quote author=patrick jane link=topic=409.msg5348#msg5348
date=1556836747]
> To be clear, the title of the thread is a lie. The owner of
this forum claims that LX200 is being scammed by the
manufacturers of this fantasy space cadet equipment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please Subscribe! Discord Sucks! Join my Forums for
discussion, debate and fellowship - FREE
> [shadow=red,left]PayPal Donations :[/shadow]
HTML https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
> Flat Earth Forums :
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
> Theology Forums :
HTML https://theologyforums.com/index.php
> YouTube :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
> YouTube Back-Up Channel :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg
> [color=orange]BitChute : [/color]
HTML https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
> [glow=red,2,300]Pinterest :[/glow]
HTML https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
> [glow=red,2,300][color=blue]Linkedin :[/glow][/color]
HTML https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
>
--- End Quote ---
[shadow=blue,left]Interesting.....
Blade[/shadow]
[/quote]Well Blade, I could be wrong of course but I do not
believe people are seeing "galaxies" from their backyards. NASA
uses CGI and artists' renderings, they modify and enhance the
images of deep space. LX200 very well does see "light" and
"lights" but they are not galaxies in my opinion and therefore
are FAKE. :o ;D :D ;) :)
[/quote]
Wrong.
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/17WMf-hCXpX41ZyJ17LHP2L2hZ9U3rjOZ/view?usp=sharing
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ndxra1WVH95huJYmqNJfugRzGOgAOqC2/view?usp=sharing
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A5Woj4O_sBuINSeOIHPhRU0di18ORonq/view?usp=sharing
#Post#: 5430--------------------------------------------------
Re: The forum owner claims I'm a scammer because I use adaptive
optics
DIR By: guest74
Date: May 7, 2019, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bladerunner link ---
>
> [quote author=patrick jane link=topic=409.msg5373#msg5373
date=1556934829]
> I guess ol LX200 had enough. I'd like him to post more of his
beautiful space stuff, millions of light years away. With his
expensive equipment. :D ;D ;) :) 8)
>
--- End Quote ---
[shadow=blue,left]I think the site is better off without him.
Blade[/shadow]
[/quote]
Yeah, you just can't stand that I point out the lies and
dishonesty of your precious forum owner. You cannot make me
leave and if you ban me I will flood this forum with multiple
posts of my work while hopping IP addresses all over the world.
I might even set up bots to post my work for me.
#Post#: 5431--------------------------------------------------
Re: The forum owner claims I'm a scammer because I use adaptive
optics
DIR By: patrick jane
Date: May 7, 2019, 10:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: LX200 link ---
>
> [quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=409.msg5375#msg5375
date=1556944080]
> [quote author=patrick jane link=topic=409.msg5373#msg5373
date=1556934829]
> I guess ol LX200 had enough. I'd like him to post more of his
beautiful space stuff, millions of light years away. With his
expensive equipment. :D ;D ;) :) 8)
>
--- End Quote ---
[shadow=blue,left]I think the site is better off without him.
Blade[/shadow]
[/quote]
Yeah, you just can't stand that I point out the lies and
dishonesty of your precious forum owner. You cannot make me
leave and if you ban me I will flood this forum with multiple
posts of my work while hopping IP addresses all over the world.
I might even set up bots to post my work for me.
[/quote][emoji12]
#Post#: 5527--------------------------------------------------
Re: The forum owner KNOWS I'm a scammer because I use adaptive
optics
DIR By: patrick jane
Date: May 9, 2019, 6:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Cosmology Has Some Big Problems
[img]
HTML https://static.scientificamerican.com/blogs/cache/file/7DAF801B-9AED-4B63-B7EAD43F5E9B1B2D_source.jpg?w=590&h=800&D658BB8D-B20A-45F9-ACB0EB79FD66CAAB[/img]
HTML https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cosmology-has-some-big-problems/
What do we really know about our universe?
Born out of a cosmic explosion 13.8 billion years ago, the
universe rapidly inflated and then cooled, it is still expanding
at an increasing rate and mostly made up of unknown dark matter
and dark energy ... right?
This well-known story is usually taken as a self-evident
scientific fact, despite the relative lack of empirical
evidence—and despite a steady crop of discrepancies arising with
observations of the distant universe.
In recent months, new measurements of the Hubble constant, the
rate of universal expansion, suggested major differences between
two independent methods of calculation. Discrepancies on the
expansion rate have huge implications not simply for calculation
but for the validity of cosmology's current standard model at
the extreme scales of the cosmos.
Another recent probe found galaxies inconsistent with the theory
of dark matter, which posits this hypothetical substance to be
everywhere. But according to the latest measurements, it is not,
suggesting the theory needs to be reexamined.
It's perhaps worth stopping to ask why astrophysicists
hypothesize dark matter to be everywhere in the universe? The
answer lies in a peculiar feature of cosmological physics that
is not often remarked. For a crucial function of theories such
as dark matter, dark energy and inflation, which each in its own
way is tied to the big bang paradigm, is not to describe known
empirical phenomena but rather to maintain the mathematical
coherence of the framework itself while accounting for
discrepant observations. Fundamentally, they are names for
something that must exist insofar as the framework is assumed to
be universally valid.
Each new discrepancy between observation and theory can of
course in and of itself be considered an exciting promise of
more research, a progressive refinement toward the truth. But
when it adds up, it could also suggest a more confounding
problem that is not resolved by tweaking parameters or adding
new variables.
Consider the context of the problem and its history. As a
mathematically driven science, cosmological physics is usually
thought to be extremely precise. But the cosmos is unlike any
scientific subject matter on earth. A theory of the entire
universe, based on our own tiny neighborhood as the only known
sample of it, requires a lot of simplifying assumptions. When
these assumptions are multiplied and stretched across vast
distances, the potential for error increases, and this is
further compounded by our very limited means of testing.
Historically, Newton's physical laws made up a theoretical
framework that worked for our own solar system with remarkable
precision. Both Uranus and Neptune, for example, were discovered
through predictions based on Newton's model. But as the scales
grew larger, its validity proved limited. Einstein's general
relativity framework provided an extended and more precise reach
beyond the furthest reaches of our own galaxy. But just how far
could it go?
The big bang paradigm that emerged in the mid-20th century
effectively stretches the model's validity to a kind of
infinity, defined either as the boundary of the radius of the
universe (calculated at 46 billion light-years) or in terms of
the beginning of time. This giant stretch is based on a few
concrete discoveries, such as Edwin Hubble's observation that
the universe appears to be expanding (in 1929) and the detection
of the microwave background radiation (in 1964). But considering
the scale involved, these limited observations have had an
outsized influence on cosmological theory.
It is of course entirely plausible that the validity of general
relativity breaks down much closer to our own home than at the
edge of the hypothetical end of the universe. And if that were
the case, today's multilayered theoretical edifice of the big
bang paradigm would turn out to be a confusing mix of fictional
beasts invented to uphold the model along with empirically valid
variables, mutually reliant on each other to the point of making
it impossible to sort science from fiction.
Compounding this problem, most observations of the universe
occur experimentally and indirectly. Today's space telescopes
provide no direct view of anything—they produce measurements
through an interplay of theoretical predictions and pliable
parameters, in which the model is involved every step of the
way. The framework literally frames the problem; it determines
where and how to observe. And so, despite the advanced
technologies and methods involved, the profound limitations to
the endeavor also increase the risk of being led astray by the
kind of assumptions that cannot be calculated.
After spending many years researching the foundations of
cosmological physics from a philosophy of science perspective, I
have not been surprised to hear some scientists openly talking
about a crisis in cosmology. In the big “inflation debate” in
Scientific American a few years ago, a key piece of the big bang
paradigm was criticized by one of the theory's original
proponents for having become indefensible as a scientific
theory.
Why? Because inflation theory relies on ad hoc contrivances to
accommodate almost any data, and because its proposed physical
field is not based on anything with empirical justification.
This is probably because a crucial function of inflation is to
bridge the transition from an unknowable big bang to a physics
we can recognize today. So, is it science or a convenient
invention?
A few astrophysicists, such as Michael J. Disney, have
criticized the big bang paradigm for its lack of demonstrated
certainties. In his analysis, the theoretical framework has far
fewer certain observations than free parameters to tweak them—a
so-called “negative significance” that would be an alarming sign
for any science. As Disney writes in American Scientist: “A
skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after
so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one
would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit
inconvenient new observations."
As I discuss in my new book, Metaphysical Experiments, there is
a deeper history behind the current problems. The big bang
hypothesis itself originally emerged as an indirect consequence
of general relativity undergoing remodeling. Einstein had made a
fundamental assumption about the universe, that it was static in
both space and time, and to make his equations add up, he added
a “cosmological constant,” for which he freely admitted there
was no physical justification.
But when Hubble observed that the universe was expanding and
Einstein's solution no longer seemed to make sense, some
mathematical physicists tried to change a fundamental assumption
of the model: that the universe was the same in all spatial
directions but variant in time. Not insignificantly, this theory
came with a very promising upside: a possible merger between
cosmology and nuclear physics. Could the brave new model of the
atom also explain our universe?
From the outset, the theory only spoke to the immediate
aftermath of an explicitly hypothetical event, whose principal
function was as a limit condition, the point at which the theory
breaks down. Big bang theory says nothing about the big bang; it
is rather a possible hypothetical premise for resolving general
relativity.
On top of this undemonstrable but very productive hypothesis,
floor upon floor has been added intact, with vastly extended
scales and new discrepancies. To explain observations of
galaxies inconsistent with general relativity, the existence of
dark matter was posited as an unknown and invisible form of
matter calculated to make up more than a quarter of all
mass-energy content in the universe—assuming, of course, the
framework is universally valid. In 1998, when a set of supernova
measurements of accelerating galaxies seemed at odds with the
framework, a new theory emerged of a mysterious force called
dark energy, calculated to fill circa 70 percent of the
mass-energy of the universe.
The crux of today's cosmological paradigm is that in order to
maintain a mathematically unified theory valid for the entire
universe, we must accept that 95 percent of our cosmos is
furnished by completely unknown elements and forces for which we
have no empirical evidence whatsoever. For a scientist to be
confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the
power of mathematical unification.
In the end, the conundrum for cosmology is its reliance on the
framework as a necessary presupposition for conducting research.
For lack of a clear alternative, as astrophysicist Disney also
notes, it is in a sense stuck with the paradigm. It seems more
pragmatic to add new theoretical floors than to rethink the
fundamentals.
Contrary to the scientific ideal of getting progressively closer
to the truth, it looks rather like cosmology, to borrow a term
from technology studies, has become path-dependent:
overdetermined by the implications of its past inventions.
This article is based on edited excerpts from the book
Metaphysical Experiments: Physics and the Invention of the
Universe, published by University of Minnesota Press.
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not
necessarily those of Scientific American.
Please Subscribe! Discord Sucks! Join my Forums for discussion,
debate and fellowship - FREE
[shadow=red,left]PayPal Donations :[/shadow]
HTML https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Flat Earth Forums :
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums :
HTML https://theologyforums.com/index.php
YouTube :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
YouTube Back-Up Channel :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg
[color=orange]BitChute : [/color]
HTML https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
[glow=red,2,300]Pinterest :[/glow]
HTML https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
[glow=red,2,300][color=blue]Linkedin :[/glow][/color]
HTML https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page