Oh man this is that stupid astronomy garbage

Here is this the stupidity you are asking?


You wonder why I think astronomers are dropkick stupid when they ask this sort of question.

The whole problem with the question is it is built on garbage of how attenuation works in a media.

Then you try to add dust into space and claim it is now a media


A media is defined as something that changes the speed of light not a collision with something.

I am sorry I am not doing this stupidity it is one for people who are drop kick stupid and believe in classic physics.

It's a really stupid argument and you have to first believe classic physics is really true and we didn't lie to you and tell you a pile of half truths ... which itself is not true we did that we lied to you.

The attenuation calculation from classic physics already tells you the coefficient is zero but yet here the dropkicks are trying to turn space into a media ... seriously people learn. If space really was a media it would have an attenuation and you would have no chance of seeing any star light not after billions of years not even in classic physics.

The answer is NO IT IS COMPLETE GARBAGE and if you spend the time to go through the proper science you can learn why.

The bit that makes me laugh with the whole stupidity is people actually want a 5 dimensional object interacting with a 3 dimensional absolute space and produce a result ... and that makes sense to them .... please save me laugh

Anyhow I am out of here I don't do classic physics garbage I have told you that before if that's your theory .. good luck laugh

Edited by Orac (11/13/13 04:01 PM)
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.