@athousandyoungsaid It's not Einstein's aether theory. It only dates back to the 1980s.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory
Einstein-aether theories were popularized by Maurizio Gasperini in a series of papers, such as Singularity Prevention and Broken Lorentz Symmetry in the 1980s
Is this a false quote?
Albert Einstein in 1920: "We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
@Metal-Brain Tell me, why do you think then that methane is a greenhouse gas in a lab but ALSO a GW gas in the atmosphere? Is the science so different for methane the poor befuddled scientists can't do a decent job with CO2 but do a GREAT job with methane?
@sonhousesaid @Metal-Brain Tell me, why do you think then that methane is a greenhouse gas in a lab but ALSO a GW gas in the atmosphere? Is the science so different for methane the poor befuddled scientists can't do a decent job with CO2 but do a GREAT job with methane?
@Metal-Brain You SAID several times, OH you can do CO2 experiments showing heat trapping in the lab but in the atmosphere, no such thing. Total BS, ONLY METHANE effects GW. What a crock of shyte.
@sonhousesaid @Metal-Brain You SAID several times, OH you can do CO2 experiments showing heat trapping in the lab but in the atmosphere, no such thing. Total BS, ONLY METHANE effects GW. What a crock of shyte.
It is in a laboratory. Proving it is in the atmosphere is a different matter. I'm not ruling it out, just pointing out that nobody really knows. It is an hypothesis.
@metal-brainsaid It is in a laboratory. Proving it is in the atmosphere is a different matter. I'm not ruling it out, just pointing out that nobody really knows. It is an hypothesis.
You just keep vomiting out this same old BS that convinces nobody here.
It is proven and it is also proven, by direct measurements just like in the links we showed you, in the atmosphere, and the only people that don't know despite having access to the info if only they bothered to read it are the minority of people like yourself that choose not to read it and choose ignorance over science. It's not just a hypothesis but a proven scientific theory.
@humysaid You just keep vomiting out this same old BS that convinces nobody here.
It is proven and it is also proven, by direct measurements just like in the links we showed you, in the atmosphere, and the only people that don't know despite having access to the info if only they bothered to read it are the minority of people like yourself that choose not to read it and choose ignorance over science. It's not just a hypothesis but a proven scientific theory.
You never proved anything. You are making false assertions.
@Metal-Brain So all the sat measurements by NASA showing missing radiation coming back from Earth, meaning it STAYS on Earth, all that data clearly showing that coming from GH gasses, Methane, CO2, H20 and the like, all that data is BOGUS?
@metal-brainsaid I do not know of one. With methane increasing along with CO2 as it always has does not make it easy to know which is contributing more. It is entirely possible that methane is causing warming in the atmosphere and not co2. It could be both or neither.
CO2 is only about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Tripling next to nothing is still close to nothing. The amount of warming th ...[text shortened]... but still mostly from natural causes. Sea level data confirms that. You are simply in denial of it.
All experiments have caveats. All of them. But the logic here doesn't make sense. Why would atmospheric air behave differently in a lab? Is there a rationale for this premise.
Since you are talking about hypotheses, there would need to be an experimental system to test it. If you can't design a model to test it it's not a hypothesis at all, and if there's nothing to prove or disprove we're no longer talking about science.
What does the percent CO2 have anything to do with whether or not its doing
@wildgrasssaid All experiments have caveats. All of them. But the logic here doesn't make sense. Why would atmospheric air behave differently in a lab? Is there a rationale for this premise.
Since you are talking about hypotheses, there would need to be an experimental system to test it. If you can't design a model to test it it's not a hypothesis at all, and if there's nothing to prov ...[text shortened]... alking about science.
What does the percent CO2 have anything to do with whether or not its doing
Einstein's Relativity Is Wrong?
06 Dec '19 11:36
Back to Top