Dr. Rao has tried to post here again, only what he was trying to link this time appears to be a proper research paper he wrote, about a very slight delay between the arrivals of different frequencies of some astrophysical light, and the implications thereof. given the official nature of the material, i concur with his placement of the post in the news section of this community, it seems to meet the standard. but dude, you've gotta fix your g+ account, so we don't have these issues with posting again.
relevant links:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DrMAPadmanabhaRaoPhD/posts/NsKZTyoVywP
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DrMAPadmanabhaRaoPhD
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323377065_Einstein%27s_formula_Emc_2_challenged_by_optical_emissions_from_SSS17a_in_collision_of_neutron_stars
relevant links:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DrMAPadmanabhaRaoPhD/posts/NsKZTyoVywP
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DrMAPadmanabhaRaoPhD
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323377065_Einstein%27s_formula_Emc_2_challenged_by_optical_emissions_from_SSS17a_in_collision_of_neutron_stars
‹
›
3/7/18
3 photos - Afficher l'album
Partagé en mode public
Dude has already reserved the right to categorize posts without having to read them. Otherwise, he or she maintains a "divine watchmaker" theory of the physical universe with respect to these "debates" where everyone has agreed on the Physics but not the right theories yet.
26 sem.
Albert Ripple (“bort”)Propriétaire+Bruce Mincks ah, you still don't understand the concept of moderation. nor the concept that personal disagreements should be dealt with privately. i ban no posts, i only assign them appropriate locations. i'm pretty sure i haven't told you i'm a determinist, but the fact that i am enters in no way into my decisions of which posts go where: if it did, that would mean i'd be discriminative against probabilistic theories, and more posts would be placed in the debate center of this physics community, not less. the issue we had last time was that you couldn't distinguish between physics (the scientific study of how nature operates and is composed) and metaphysics (the philosophical study of what nature means in terms of abstracted concepts); a problem which no one else here has. this is not the place to wax metaphysical about what it means for something to be called physics: the only place where that is acceptable is either the chat center, or somewhere other than this community. this is physics debates, not philosophy debates. at any rate, since our last argument, i've made a pinpost clarifying and detailing what posting topics and formats are to be considered qualified and appropriate for each filter in this community (and as always, the chat center and unsorted area cover everything excluded from the other filters). and i'm allowed to decide how posts are organized because i am the community's founder, owner, and moderator, so if you don't like that, you can leave. if i were an authoritarian, i would have banned you and deleted your posts and comments by now, because you are ultimately frustrating and pointless. now stop dredging up old history to intentionally divert the course of this post away from its established topics: Dr. Rao's new research paper and the difficulties he seems to be having with his g+ account. if you want to continue to pursue this argument, you may do so in either a private post to me or, if you want to continue to be a nuisance, in a new post you create in the chat center. i'm sure the rest of us may well be as tired of your bullshit as i am.
speaking to the rest of you, in case you don't know the history of this, just scroll down to the posts from around november 2016; since we don't post that much, it's not that far.26 sem.- Great debate, Al. Call me "Physics."26 sem.
