/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15928211
That's not what the paper is about. They present an argument from abundance patterns that elements above uranium are partially products of fission of even more massive nuclei. Indirect evidence that the R process in supernovae creating neutron rich super-heavy nuclei beyond atomic masses of 260, which quickly decay. It's actually a nice test of the standard picture of nucleosynthesis in supernovea.

>correctly identify it to be condensed from aether under high gravity
And can you calculate abundance patterns from this, or is it just word salad?

>>15928223
Oh look more irrelevent bullshit. Reminder that Herouni never measured no CMB. The CMB is definitely real and not local. The fact that galaxy clusters leave shadows on the CMB proves it is more distant, and this is definitely the case as hundreds of new galaxy clusters have been found this way.

>>15818163
>The cosmic wave background was not only predicted in the big bang theory.
Such as? Secondly how does another model predicting the CMB refute this as a prediction.
>Most of the cosmic wave background is from the Milkey Way.
Wrong. That is completely debunked by the existence of the SZ effect, where distant galaxy clusters leave imprints on the CMB. This was predicted by astronomers, and shows unanimously that the CMB is much more distant. If it was light from the Milky Way it wouldn't give a shit about distant clusters.
It's funny you rant about astronomers and you say we shouldn't care, but you're clearly very opinionated despite being pig ignorant.

Robitaille is a fraud and has no idea what he's talking about. Note that Planck had two instruments which used different detection methods, Robitaille only talks about one and yet both LFI and HFI get consistent results.


No matter how many times this shit is spammed it has still already proven wrong with empirical evidence. The Sunyaev–Zel'dovich Effect which shows where galaxy clusters have boosted the energy of CMBR photons to higher energies via the inverse Compton effect. Now this could be explained if it was just increased intensity from clusters adding to the local background BUT it's not just that. In certain frequencies it reduces the background radiation because photons have been promoted to higher energies. These galaxy clusters leave shadows on the CMB as we observe it, like this beautiful example from Planck. This is not explainable in a local model and it is commonly observed where we detect these signals and find an cluster in optical or x-ray. Furthermore the SZ effect is not only observed in known galaxy clusters but has actually been used to find hundreds of new confirmed ones. This would absolutely not be possible if Robitaille was correct, yet it is, finding hundreds is not an accident. More recently gravitational lensing of the CMB has been measured, this is further disproof of Robitaille's strange claims.

Robitaille isn't a scientist. He declares all this shit without ever doing an experiment or reducing observational data himself. He's a dogmatic hack, who isn't interested in what reality has to say.

>>15181687
>The "CMB" is likely all noise
That is demonstrably false. Firstly the CMB has been detected by hundreds of telescopes. Secondly the CMB has been used to find galaxy clusters via the shadows they cast.
The SZ effect was predicted to occur when hot electrons in the atmospheres of galaxy clusters scatter the CMB photons to higher energies. The result is a bright spot at high frequencies and a shadow at low frequencies. Pic related is a beautiful SZ detection from ESA's Planck. If there was no CMB there would be no SZ effect. If the CMB was noise you could explain the bright spot at high frequencies as the cluster's radio emission contributing on top of the noise. But there is absolutely no way a distant galaxy cluster can leave a dark spot on "noise" if it never passed by it. The fact that the SZ effect is detected shows clearly the CMB is a true cosmological background.
> It can say whatever you want it to say if you torture the data properly
Pure copium. You can dismiss literally any data with this empty excuse. But even if you believe that, the CMB and the SZ effect have been used to find thousands of new confirmed galaxy clusters. It's not noise. Don't just arrogantly dismiss everything you don't understand.

Yes. But that was always the case. Note that "Sky Scholar" literally deleted their last video after even they started to smell the bullshit. His claims have never made sense on even the most basic level of logic. He doesn't even understand the very basic shit he is criticising, he does not understand multipoles. But you can't ask any of these people to think.

Pic related, it's one of the many observations which completely destroy his claim. The SZ effect. Ask yourself how a distant galaxy cluster casts a shadow on light emitted by the oceans. It can't, and yet it is observed to cast a shadow on the CMB and so he is wrong. His other nonsensical claims require either negative brightness or the sky to be totally dark at radio wavelengths.