olofscience

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    2,543

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

  • Feedback

    N/A

Everything posted by olofscience

  1. olofscience
    Nope, otherwise you'd be able to quote me. You can't. I didn't attack the messenger, that's not allowed here. I challenged some of her other statements on AGW, and hilarity ensued.
  2. olofscience
    Yes really, you completely made up the lie that I didn't like the link you posted. Not sure why you think posting more links or the same link again is a valid argument against that.
  3. olofscience
    Making things up again...
  4. olofscience
    Do you mean that Zoe Phin crackpot that you brought here? Sorry to break it to you bud, she's no scientist.
  5. olofscience
    So it was abusive enough to have to be edited out oh well thanks for the info!
  6. olofscience
    This is funny, where's ZP now? did she get banned? Because coincidentally there's an article in Nature that hails the measurement of gravity of a 90-milligram gold ball: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00591-1
  7. olofscience
    I just gave her a shovel...she was the one who kept digging
  8. olofscience
    Yeah she did that much earlier in the thread. She applied the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to anything that has W/m^2 even though it's not a blackbody. Edit: I did point out that photons don't have a temperature, their energy is measured in eV, but she ignored it (among many other things)
  9. olofscience
    It was sad, and also a bit amusing, to watch her descent into incomprehensible nonsensical ramblings...
  10. olofscience
    Running out of more complex words again... Um, what are you talking about? Were you counting pixels again?
  11. olofscience
    I did no such thing. You're the one who keeps jumping topics!
  12. olofscience
    But to think, I was about to be demolished with ZP's clever trap about protoplanets! Disappointingly, she has now moved to random topics as it wasn't very clever at all.
  13. olofscience
    lol, what? Abandoning the protoplanets now? This is starting to get boring.
  14. olofscience
    Irrelevant? You're still thinking they used the photo of the blob to measure the size of the planet? They actually describe their method: They're the SOURCE of the numbers you're saying. They didn't "count pixels on the image". They actually calculated it, from, surprise surprise, the blackbody equation that you keep using inappropriately for lasers: https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.04483
  15. olofscience
    But they're near enough that diffraction error is not significant. Again, the astronomers in THAT PAPER did not use the size of the blob to calculate the radius of the protoplanet.
  16. olofscience
    There's only one star whose angular size is actually measurable from earth - Betelgeuse. The size of the bright spots on any astronomical image only gives you an indication of the brightness of the object, not the size. You can even try this yourself. A tiny but bright laser pointer will look like the sun when captured by a camera from a distance, but a larger but dimmer light will look like a point of light.
  17. olofscience
    You do know that they didn't use the size of the blob in the photo to calculate the radius right? That would be subject to a lot of diffraction error.
  18. olofscience
    What Billvon said. From the Wikipedia article: And it's a large planet: https://earthsky.org/space/astronomers-see-baby-planet-pds-70b-growing
  19. olofscience
    I don't know. I've just emailed one of the astronomers involved, so I'll probably have some answers by next week.
  20. olofscience
    You only think it's simple because that's the limit of your ability. The black circle marks the position of the star PDS 70, but your question is more specific and that will depend on the specific processing to get the image, which I didn't do.
  21. olofscience
    You don't need confirmation of seeing the same thing to explain your point, and you've already proved again and again that you're deceptive.
  22. olofscience
    Get to it then. That's not an answer, that's a question.
  23. olofscience
    Why should I help you out? You've answered none of my questions.
  24. olofscience
    Yeah, no comment from her about her obvious attempt at trying to trap which failed miserably: So, why the sudden pivot back to PDS 70? Have you forgotten about the triple-star system so quickly?
  25. olofscience
    Can't you read from the image source?