|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 6, 2010 17:23:43 GMT -4
Wow, major thread hijack. Sorry...
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 6, 2010 17:05:12 GMT -4
Much as I love him, "having Jay look at it and criticize it" is not exactly the same as "getting it peer reviewed." Anyway it's not as though he believes it when Jay tells him he's wrong anyway. My thoughts exactly. Jay, while the expert, would probably be seen by some as too invested in the hoax theory to be truly independent. However, I'm not sure if there would be anyone more qualified regarding some of the claims. I would not question his integrity either. The offer to Jarrah is for a review that is mutually agreed to by both parties. It seems Jarrah does not know what peer review is, and once again has dodged the issue. I'd like to see him turn up here and discuss terms, politely and patiently. I have a feeling he simply won't put his money where his mouth is. That is why I have more respect for IM. At least he has his ideas, and is prepared to defend them in the 'wolves den.' Whether his approach was annoying, that's down to personal tolerance levels.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 6, 2010 15:35:30 GMT -4
But what they fear most is being found out. The last thing they want is a real expert trying to dissect their carefully choreographed "inverse tachyon pulse from HAARP." Hence they want to bluster quickly past their misnomers and try to focus on the part they think they can still salvage. Ah, like Jarrah White did when it was pointed out to him that not all solar flares in the CFI are solar proton events (and yes there is defintion for that). So what did he say to salvage the situation: 'X-rays are produced by solar flares, and they are harmful too.'Of course, his response after you handed him his ass on plate was to make a video saying how big and nasty Jay was, and how you avoided a question about the Sibrel/Aldrin punch. I guess that is all part of the choreographing too. When you've been torn into shreds, paper over the cracks by producing a cover story. Today Jarrah claims that a qualfied physicist reviews his videos. Eight hours on, I still can't walk down stairs for fear of collapsing in fits of laughter. I guess this will be the same physicist who allowed him to claim that he could scatter rocks on the moon that had 216 times the mass for the same exhaust gas pressure. Providing of course, the rock on the moon has 36 times the area so one can apply 36 times more force. Jay, I suggest that you do go and watch his new video, 12 minutes of it. I only suggest you watch his video to ensure my interpretation of what he says is correct. It is a hoot. He makes his case for why he is(n't) peer reviewed, and if anyone is going to peer review his work, he would have thought you would have done it by now. I think he implies that because you have not, it is 'undebunkable.' I'll give you the time stamp to that bit, to save you the 8 minutes of cr*p before.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 6, 2010 14:01:03 GMT -4
I just can't cope with Americans who call a missile a miss-il. There's an 'e' on the end of the word that makes the 'i' long. OK, I am now going to duck for cover... Resistance Is Futile. Is that fut-il or fut-ile?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 6, 2010 13:13:55 GMT -4
I just can't cope with Americans who call a missile a miss-il. There's an 'e' on the end of the word that makes the 'i' long. OK, I am now going to duck for cover...
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 6, 2010 9:17:35 GMT -4
But he didn't need to vacuum the outside, cos its already a vacuum out there, hence the LM was already vacuumed. And even if he did go outside to vacuum, he would have died due to the Van Halen Belt hitting him.
Sometimes I think people are just joking, and make such comments to be as ridiculous as they can.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 5, 2010 20:21:12 GMT -4
I remember the same sort of things being said about Rodin not so long ago, do not confuse politeness with reason. I see where you are coming from, but I don't think I am confusing the two. I doubt IM will show any reason, but he's very different (so far) to some hoax proponents who are obsessive and wrapped up in a tight little ball of hatred and venom. At least he has come here to present his case, unlike a certain other person of antipodean origin who simply does not have the bottle or can remain civil/on topic long long enough, to answer some fundamental questions.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 5, 2010 15:18:13 GMT -4
Unlike most HBs, IM has an endearing kind of folly. He is just so wrong about so many things that it is hard to understand just how far the misconceptions go. I'd agree. He's polite and has asked to be pointed towards a text on the subject. Compared with Jarrah, Duane Daman and the rest of the crazy gang at YouTube, I have no quarms with IM. Most of the YouTube guys are wrapped up in a tight ball of venom and hatred. He's actually quite refreshing. When I look at Kaysing, I don't see a hateful figure, maybe a man who liked to spin a yarn and tell a tale from his chair. Not hateful though. Hell, people on this board have come out an commended Kaysing for his charity. It seems that the modern moon hoax conspiracy theorist is angry with the government, and if I may add, a little disturbed. IM does not come across that way.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 3, 2010 16:53:28 GMT -4
So going back to Echanton's initial point. Why on Earth are you giving us examples of ballistic flights of shaped projectiles in an atmosphere and talking about helicopters? You take these Earth bound experiences and try to extrapolate and produce models for what you think a space craft in flight should be. Is that really a fair comparison? It is called a fallacy of equivalence. Are you familiar with logical fallacies? The laws of mechanics are very precise things, and not always intuitive. We have mathematical constructs that describe these laws, and they are based on exact principles such as the conservation of energy and angular momentum. Extrapolation from one model to another without doing the math is fraught with danger. Concerning the book "To rise from earth", I cannot discuss it if I don't see the reference; I need to know what exactly he is talking about. So, as long I have not seen the exact text, I cannot comment it. This is a moot point. You have been told that the first two chapters deal with orbital mechanics, which is what we are talking about. You don't need to make comment on the book par se, but demonstrate that you can talk in the language of orbital mechanics. I think it was quietly suggested that you ought to go away and read about orbital mechanics first, before you make any further comment on it. You can find that anywhere on the web. In fact, one of the contributors to these boards has an excellent site on the topic: www.braeunig.us/space/index.htmSo, go fill your boots...
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 3, 2010 16:17:31 GMT -4
Inquistivemind : Are we talking about orbital mechanics, as in space, as in a vacuum?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 3, 2010 15:43:40 GMT -4
I have used this analogy, knowing it was not exact, because the lem does not behave like an helicopter, but to help people to understand. Unfortunately inexact analogies in precise and exacting subjects such as orbital mechanics and spacecraft maneuver aren't going to get you far. This sentence, for my way of thinking at least, closes the case. In your own words you admit to using something that is not exact, but then tell us 'it is so people can understand.' That is like saying I will teach a student quantum mechanics using Newton's laws. I know it is not exact, but the I can use an imperfect analogy so they can understand. Science doesn't work like that. I think you are making the assumption that people here do not understand, and you do. I have lost confidence in you as a teacher already if you are already using deviant science to make your point. How can I trust you?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 1, 2010 14:44:51 GMT -4
Bangers and mash, the original comfort food. That's a very British phrase for someone from outside the UK Do you prefer it with baked beans or onion gravy? I'm a baked beans man myself. On food related posts, the best countires for steaks are Aus/Can/US. You guys really know how to do a good piece of prime steak.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 28, 2010 17:07:40 GMT -4
Depends on which end you were holding. Oh, you haven't seen me. I have 10 sausages for fingers and thumbs.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 28, 2010 16:50:08 GMT -4
Now my brother is a true computer engineer -- BSCE, requiring the core engineering curriculum. He designs radiation-hardened electronics for spacecraft down at the wire level. True, I laugh at him when he tries to program, but he laughs at me when I try to build a circuit. It's all good. I think you'd both laugh at me if you saw me with a soldering iron in my hand.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 25, 2010 20:45:16 GMT -4
I'm not sure if this can be considered in the context of the orginal question, but laser ranging has certainly helped inform our understanding of geodescy. Huge steps have been made in this field thanks to the retroreflectors that were placed by the Apollo astronauts.
|
|