olofscience
-
Content
2,543 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11 -
Feedback
N/A
Everything posted by olofscience
-
I've provided lots, you've provided NO CITATIONS whatsoever. Nice try - they're not protoplanets, despite you trying to hide the image source. They're a tri-star system forming: https://astronomynow.com/2016/10/28/alma-witnesses-the-birth-of-a-triple-star-system/ Taken by RADIO array ALMA, by the way, which you already think just makes computer-generated images PS. the same ALMA that imaged the ring around PDS 70 which demolished your argument PPS. by the way if you say multiple star systems are by gravitational capture - this is actually evidence OPPOSITE to your argument triple stars forming together! Thanks for saving me the effort of finding counter-evidence to your point
-
Which science historians? Citation please.
-
Blobby. Where's your proof of gravitational capture? Still waiting. This is starting to get boring...
-
Distraction? You're the one who brought it up! I'm not going to answer your question until you post some proof of your gravitational capture theory. Deal? I've only been asking in the past dozen posts, why are you avoiding it? Oh, it's because you have no answer.
-
What? The original VLT had digital cameras attached. (link: https://www.eso.org/sci/facilities/paranal/instruments/fors.html ) Do you mean film cameras? (I presume from the 100 year reference) Film cameras have never been on the VLT. Never ever. They put digital cameras in 1998 when it was built, and digital cameras kept improving so they upgraded them. Nice try at attempting a new conspiracy theory, any evidence of that gravitational capture coming anytime soon?
-
It just means that it took the work of a lot of people. COLLUSION is actually a lot easier with fewer people!
-
You're the one who can't read. SPHERE and NaCo are instruments attached to the VLT. If you attach a camera to a normal telescope, it doesn't suddenly turn it into a radio telescope. Yeah, your crackpot page.
-
Well good thing ZP is back so I can get my amusement elsewhere
-
First, it's spelled "cheap". Second, I'm not arguing that, you're making stuff up again. If you keep making up my arguments then you can keep arguing with yourself (and winning), but I'll not be a part of that.
-
https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.11568 It's pretty far. VLT is a normal telescope. It's NOT a radio telescope. Your interpretation of any paper is as trustworthy as your knowledge of the basics. Which is, not at all. Post a link here please. Also while you're at it, post a link to your gravitational capture evidence.
-
So...this is the hill you choose to die on? You don't get technology very much you see.
-
The benefits of technology. Does it even matter what's the fuel behind it?
-
But you keep confusing the benefits of technology with the benefits of CO2. They're completely separate things. You just keep lumping them together so CO2 rides on the coattails of those benefits, which is a very dishonest technique.
-
By the way, you've definitely given ZERO evidence for your gravitational capture theory so far. Still waiting. Photos would be great (even from interferometers that you distrust due to your inability to understand them)
-
Oh wow. Jealous of the EHT team much? They needed terabytes of data, because they're doing interferometry. If you think their data is made up, why do you keep using their data?
-
You're getting desperate are you? Nice try, but that's definitely an image. A composite image from 2 different telescopes (ALMA and VLT) , but no computer generation going on. The first line of the article even being "it's the first protoplanet to be directly imaged". The paper says:
-
Yeah you keep saying that, but you dance around every time a non-fossil fuel technology encounters a setback, no matter if they were entirely private enterprises without any taxpayer backing.
-
The benefits primarily are from technological progress, and fossil fuels powered most of that progress. But when an improved technology not using fossil fuels comes out, like electric with numerous other benefits, you're strangely against it. I think you're doing it just because 1) you're emotionally attached to fossil fuels somehow, and 2) you just want to oppose anything the AGW proponents like. Even if climate change wasn't an issue, I'd still be very interested in electrics because of their performance potential. I'd still be interested in electric aircraft because of the potential in massive savings in operations and maintenance costs. But you seem to revel in the possibility that they're very far into the future. Why?
-
Aww, why are you now distancing yourself from your most entertaining contribution to this forum? Her page was one of the sources of your "facts" right?
-
So wait - if your main argument now is that "it has warmed up, but not by much" then the benefits of warming shouldn't be much either. When you're talking about the benefits of warming, it's as if we had a massive amount of warming. Which is it?
-
You wish. You've already demonstrated your inability to read, inability to do simple maths, inability to understand the simplest concepts. About the only ability you've demonstrated is to cherry-pick, and also bring in one of the craziest posters we've had in a while.
-
Do you have any new arguments this time round? This sounds like the same old, same old.
-
Me personally? Not much.
-
So, to argue your point on SC, what you say is what you say, but what every other person in the world says is attributed to our side? You'll have an unlimited pool of examples, so if you want to debate me, then you'll have to agree just to draw arguments from what *I* say, not what AOC says.
-
Rephrasing that as "literally the end of the world" is pretty dishonest though.