ACG52

Did you get that from watching Total Recall?

I'd suppose you didn't bother reading the link.

This was the question: In response, you cite mythology. So the answer to the above question is 'no'.

So the answer is no.

Then why does it work so well in reality, as opposed to your opinion?

One comment is I don't go looking at videos. If you're posting here, it's considered good form to at least give a brief overview of your WAG. (wild ass guess). This is a discussion site, not an extention of youtube. And this should certainly be in Speculations.

Breath a sigh of relief?

Yes, he made major contributions, and you've lowered the average level of intelligence.

Crackpot index gives you 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

That just confirms your status.

No, the stellar orbits show that there's something very massive, and very small. There has never been any evidence, of any kind, that the laws of physics differ from one part of the galaxy to another. No, it's not.

I'm not. If I were, this thread would have been moved to the trash already. But the mods at this site have more patience than I.

It proves that reality isn't a matter of perception.

Speculation Forum Rules. 1. <LI>Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

No. It indicates that Mars used to experience tectonic activity, but now it doesn't. In fact, it more than indicates it, it says so.

Another unsung genius. Thousands of highly educated, often brilliant physicists over the last hundred years have missed this, but Nobrainer, with no education, and no knowledge of physics, has managed to figure it out. Riigghhtt.....

We have good observational evidence of the BH in the center of the Milky Way, in the form of stellar orbits around the center. They tell us there is a 400 million solar mass object they are orbiting. High speed stellar orbits

Step in front of a bus, and tell me it's simply created in your mind. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K. Dick,

An object following the geodesic in a curved space-time is in free fall. No forces involved. Do you know what the geodesic is? This is pretty meaningless. When you apply a force to an object, the entire object accelerates evenly. You don't have different pieces of the object being subjected to different rates of acceleration. Another meaningless sentence. I'll refer you to pages 244 - 249 of Kip Thorne's Black Holes & Time Warps for the explanation of why it's an illusion. In fact, you should read the whole book. It contains understandable explanations of basic Relativity, something you sorely need. So you have no education in physics beyond mass media popularizations, yet you're convinced you know better. Invincible ignorance is just that, invincible. And it's usless to argue with a crank. Here, read up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

You are incorrect. Again, incorrect. Again, incorrect. Again, incorrect. Let me just cut to the chase. Just about everything you post is incorrect. You seem to have little or no actual knowledge of physics. I would guess that what you do think you know has been garnered from TV shows and youtube.

They don't make sense to you because you lack the background needed to understand things. Density is mass per volume. If you have two particles of equal radius, and one is more massive than the other, it is denser.

The axial jets do not come from within the BH. They are generated by the heated swirling of the accretion disk surrounding the BH.

So seeing is believing, yet we have an extremely limited view of the universe. You're basing your beliefs on incomplete data.

Then you should have no trouble in extracting the relevant equation from SR and posting them here, with the explanation of how they apply you your ideas. But you're trying to pretend that you are a physicist. If that's not the case, what other purpose do your ideas and posts have? If you were a physicist, you'd know that many of the premises of your ideas are incorrect. The problem appears to be shared by everyone here except you.

Whether the emitter is still there or not is imaterial. If we are heading towards where the emitter is or was, we will see the light as being blue-shifted, as compared to the spectrum when it was emitted. If headed away from the original position at the time of emission, we see it as red-shifted. No it doesn't. All observers measure the speed of light as c. The frequencies will be different due to relative motion, but this in no way violates SR.