The world goes Green

[wmw999 2,122]

4 minutes ago, olofscience said:

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.

The thing is that you are a part of it right now.

Wendy P.

[olofscience 421]

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

The thing is that you are a part of it right now.

Wendy P.

Well good thing ZP is back so I can get my amusement elsewhere

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof,

VLT may be 4 normal telescopes, but not VLT/Sphere or VLT/NaCo. Can't you read?

Here's a clue: When you have THAT many authors, you're looking at COLLUSION, not science.

You're being sold something.

This pattern has been noted by historian scientists who study scientists, science organizations, etc.

Please answer this, if you can, how fast must a planet form so that the heat from gravitational collapse is not lost? Do you know?

Edited March 2, 2021 by Zoe Phin

[olofscience 421]

4 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

VLT may be 4 normal telescopes, but not VLT/Sphere or VLT/NaCo. Can't you read?

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.

7 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

You're being sold something.

Yeah, your crackpot page.

[olofscience 421]

11 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Here's a clue: When you have THAT many authors, you're looking at COLLUSION, not science.

It just means that it took the work of a lot of people.

COLLUSION is actually a lot easier with fewer people!

[Zoe Phin 0]

A normal telescope has a camera attached. The original VLT had cameras. We had this technology for 100 years.

But now we need "special" cameras to see.

The old cameras could see billions of light years away, but for some reason can't see things 370 light years away.

Weird. Why do you think that is?

Edited March 2, 2021 by Zoe Phin

[olofscience 421]

10 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

A normal telescope has a camera attached. The original VLT had cameras. We had this technology for 100 years.

But now we need "special" cameras to see.

The old cameras could see billions of light years away, but for some reason can't see things 370 light years away.

Weird. Why do you think that is?

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?

Edited March 2, 2021 by olofscience

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof,

Never suggested VLT had film cameras.

Nice distraction from the main point.

You still didn't answer my question: how fast must a planet form so that the heat from gravitational collapse is not lost? Do you know?

[BIGUN 1,053]

38 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Here's a clue: When you have THAT many authors, you're looking at COLLUSION, not science.

Here's a clue: When you have THAT many authors, you're looking at COLLABORATION, which is science. 

[olofscience 421]

1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

olof,

Never suggested VLT had film cameras.

Nice distraction from the main point.

You still didn't answer my question: how fast must a planet form so that the heat from gravitational collapse is not lost? Do you know?

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.

[Zoe Phin 0]

3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Here's a clue: When you have THAT many authors, you're looking at COLLABORATION, which is science. 

Not according to science historians. When you have up to 6, it's collaboration, beyond that it's collusion.

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof,

How do you feel about these protoplanets:

[olofscience 421]

1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

olof,

How do you feel about these protoplanets:

Blobby.

Where's your proof of gravitational capture? Still waiting.

This is starting to get boring...

[brenthutch 383]

52 minutes ago, olofscience said:

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.

Sorry I hadn’t had my coffee yet.

When I said cheap, reliable and abundant beats expensive, intermittent and sometimes unavailable, you asked me “So...is this the hill you choose to die on”

Just what did you mean by that?

 

[olofscience 421]

4 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Not according to science historians. When you have up to 6, it's collaboration, beyond that it's collusion.

Which science historians? Citation please.

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof,

You sure demand so much and provide so little.

Did you like my protoplanets picture? You agree that they're protoplanets right?

[BIGUN 1,053]

2 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Did you like my protoplanets picture? You agree that they're protoplanets right?

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-10/uoo-otd102616.php  

[wmw999 2,122]

12 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Which science historians? Citation please.

I did a quick search, and couldn't find any sort of cite. I'd bet that it's from an article about the publish-or-perish culture in academia.

Wendy P.

[Zoe Phin 0]

BIGUN, Not cool.

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I did a quick search, and couldn't find any sort of cite. I'd bet that it's from an article about the publish-or-perish culture in academia.

Wendy P.

Sure. And you claimed I had ads on my blog. You're very trustworthy.

[BIGUN 1,053]

2 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

BIGUN, Not cool.

Yeah, why is that? You were being deceptive. 

3 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Sure. And you claimed I had ads on my blog. You're very trustworthy.

She did no such thing. She ASKED if there were ads on the site. 

[Zoe Phin 0]

2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

She did no such thing. She ASKED if there were ads on the site. 

Right, because she couldn't bother seeing it herself. Just like she didn't bother doing the last thing she claimed she did.

 

3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Yeah, why is that? You were being deceptive. 

Deceptive, eh? And what do you think my point was doing that?

[olofscience 421]

21 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

olof,

You sure demand so much and provide so little.

Did you like my protoplanets picture? You agree that they're protoplanets right?

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

Edited March 2, 2021 by olofscience

[gowlerk 1,912]

11 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

 

Sure. And you claimed I had ads on my blog. You're very trustworthy.

Trust Wendy? I don't know, she seems pretty shifty to me. You haven't been here long have you? That Wendy has a bit of a reputation alright.

[BIGUN 1,053]

6 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Deceptive, eh? And what do you think my point was doing that?

To be misleading. Just like your entire website. 

[brenthutch 383]

48 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Sorry I hadn’t had my coffee yet.

When I said cheap, reliable and abundant beats expensive, intermittent and sometimes unavailable, you asked me “So...is this the hill you choose to die on”

Just what did you mean by that?

 

Bump