Einstein's Relativity Is Wrong?

@metal-brain said
Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas.

Are you just writing random talking points now? How is it a hypothesis if you can't design an experiment?

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
But misleading:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/06/20/water-vapor-vs-carbon-dioxide-which-wins-in-climate-warming/#5f038d563238

The problem is he will either just refuse to read it or just baselessly dismiss it if he does. He isn't interested in facts.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
But misleading:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/06/20/water-vapor-vs-carbon-dioxide-which-wins-in-climate-warming/#5f038d563238

"...water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect...However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature..."

Water vapor controls the earth's temperatures. Water vapor is also clouds and clouds reflect light to some extent. This is an example of a negative feedback effect. This helps to regulate the earth's temps to some extent and is why our climate is relatively stable.

The author is wrong.

https://principia-scientific.org/water-vapor-is-an-anti-greenhouse-gas/

@metal-brain said
"...water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect...However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature..."

Water vapor controls the earth's temperatures. Water vapor is also clouds and clouds reflect light to some extent. This is an example of a negative feedback effect. This helps to r ...[text shortened]...

The author is wrong.

https://principia-scientific.org/water-vapor-is-an-anti-greenhouse-gas/

your weblink isn't a science one. it shows some comments by Alan Siddons, who is a layperson and not a scientist, and he just shouts out the usual hateful anti-climate-science BS.
He states the known facts about latent heat transfer via evaporation and then later condensation of water, which NOBODY denies, and pretends that somehow shows water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas and hopes the readers are too stupid to notice it doesn't. What makes water vapor a greenhouse gas is that it absorbs some IR; what has that got to do with latent heat transfer via evaporation and then later condensation of water? Answer; nothing.

@humy said
your weblink isn't a science one. it shows some comments by Alan Siddons, who is a layperson and not a scientist, and he just shouts out the usual hateful anti-climate-science BS.
He states the known facts about latent heat transfer via evaporation and then later condensation of water, which NOBODY denies, and pretends that somehow shows water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas and h ...[text shortened]... do with latent heat transfer via evaporation and then later condensation of water? Answer; nothing.

So you cannot prove it wrong. Not surprising.

@Metal-Brain
What is REALLY not surprising is how closed your brain is.

@Metal-Brain
This dude also claimed there are galaxies receding faster than the speed of light which has been totally proven false. That alone puts this dude into fringe territory.
Inflationary theory says due to the expansion of the whole universe the stuff very far away has to be going faster than the speed of light. This could very well be true but that dude says we SEE galaxies moving faster than light. Two different concepts.
He is talking about observations of jets supposedly moving faster than c and uses that as one of his main arguments against Einstein.
He is a contrarian just like you.
He produces no new knowledge, only his negative bullshyte in order to build up his own reputation among the stupid.
If he were a real scientists, he would have produced papers that show different predictions than big Al. ALL he does is bitch about Einstein using other people's work which is what science is all about. Building on previous work, seeing stuff in that work that others didn't.
In short this dude is just another bullshyte artist seeking to find followers, maybe write a book to get him fame and fortune. There are THOUSANDS of such authors writing BULLSHYTE books. One REAL biggie, L Ron Hubbard, Dianetics, the basis for the BULLSHTYE religion of scientology. As just one putrid example.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
This dude also claimed there are galaxies receding faster than the speed of light which has been totally proven false. That alone puts this dude into fringe territory.
Inflationary theory says due to the expansion of the whole universe the stuff very far away has to be going faster than the speed of light. This could very well be true but that dude says we SE ...[text shortened]... Hubbard, Dianetics, the basis for the BULLSHTYE religion of scientology. As just one putrid example.

What dude?

@Metal-Brain
Did you forget to take your alzheimers meds? YOU are the one posted Cao's stupid video.
Who else did you think I was talking about?

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Did you forget to take your alzheimers meds? YOU are the one posted Cao's stupid video.
Who else did you think I was talking about?

Okay. You are on the right thread now. What was the specific claim you had saying Cao was wrong about? What were his exact quotes and why was he wrong about those specific quotes?

@Metal-Brain
I already posted that twice, the latest one in 'question about photons'.
And why is it you are attracted to lunatic fringe dudes like Cao in the first place rather than reading about REAL scientists like Hawking, Feynman and the like? Or some of the science series like David Attenborough or Carl Sagan, Cosmos? Why do you continue to find these idiots who think they are changing the world?

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
I already posted that twice, the latest one in 'question about photons'.
And why is it you are attracted to lunatic fringe dudes like Cao in the first place rather than reading about REAL scientists like Hawking, Feynman and the like? Or some of the science series like David Attenborough or Carl Sagan, Cosmos? Why do you continue to find these idiots who think they are changing the world?

Why do you insist that a mass-less wave is a particle? If I throw a rock into a pond can you hold the wave it makes in your hand? Is it a tangible particle?

So you claim nothing is a particle. Is the ripple in a pond a particle? Nope.

@metal-brain said
Why do you insist that a mass-less wave is a particle? If I throw a rock into a pond can you hold the wave it makes in your hand? Is it a tangible particle?

So you claim nothing is a particle. Is the ripple in a pond a particle? Nope.

Explain Compton scattering if light is not a particle.

@metal-brain said
Why do you insist that a mass-less wave is a particle?

Why do you insist on such staw mans? Nobody I know of insists all massless waves are particles.
A photon is either a wave or a particle depending on its current interaction and any photon can be either thus, without being pedantic, we say a photon is a particle and a wave. That doesn't in any way imply we would say all types of other massless waves, such as sea waves, are particles. Nor does that imply we would would say a photon can behave both like a wave and a particle at exactly the same point in time.

And, just like DeepThought asked, if a photon isn't a particle, how do you explain Compton scattering?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering
"...The effect is significant because it demonstrates that light cannot be explained purely as a wave phenomenon.
...Thus, light behaves as if it consists of particles
..."

@deepthought said
Explain Compton scattering if light is not a particle.

Ask the electron.