|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 6, 2010 13:18:08 GMT -4
ETA - Ah, point's already been made. Yeah, but you did it so much better than I did. I just lazily copy and pasted from Wikipedia, you explained it in your own words. |
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 6, 2010 13:23:13 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Nov 6, 2010 13:27:06 GMT -4
...spellings in American English adhere to the original English and are actually more correct. Apparently centuries ago the English tried to Europeanize their language to some extent and adopted some French-like spellings to their words. By this time the American colonies had already been established and were in many ways isolated from England. As such, the Americans retained the original English spellings. This correlates with what I've gathered about the spoken language(s) as well. It seems the modern non-rhotic accent of British English developed through influence from other European languages after the establishment of the American colonies, and was only picked up by American port cities that had frequent trade with England, e.g. Boston. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 6, 2010 13:56:15 GMT -4
Regarding diacriticals, some writers are naïve. Some are blasé. Most just don't know how to make their keyboards do it. That's such a beautiful English major-y joke. I will have to tell it to the next person I talk to who knows what a diacritical is. LO, my point about research skills is that post-correction, he had an "eh, you know what I mean" attitude. One which didn't accept correction. Of course, I'm not sure if any of us know the French abbreviations for those things; it could be he's wrong in French, too. I certainly don't know enough French to attempt to look it up. Or even enough Spanish, a language I actually studied once upon a time, to look it up in Spanish. There's a reason I stick to English-language fora. I also note that, were I trying to debate a serious point in another language, I'd do my best to make sure I got the important bits right. When I grumbled about the grammar of the menu at our local Mexican restaurant, I might have been able to manage in Spanish, but I didn't try, because I wasn't sure. "I'm sorry; I speak a different language" works the first time you've made a particular mistake. If it is followed by a lengthy explanation of what the terms are and why they are in the terms' native language (let's face it, English is the language of NASA!), the correct response is, "Oh, I'm sorry. I'll try to use the correct term in the future," not "close enough." At least in serious scholarly debate. Or even the approximation we try to maintain here sometimes. |
|
|
|
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 JayUtah on Nov 6, 2010 14:08:56 GMT -4
But I think some people were seeing it as a lack of research on his part rather than as a language issue, and that is what I disagree with. If I could be sure it were a language issue, I would sympathize. But I speak enough French to be useful, and I can't think of any way an acronym for the French names for those spacecraft would not begin with M. "Lunar," "service," "command," and "module" are all cognates or near-cognates between English and French. In short, module lunaire and module de command, as well as module de service (et de command) spring easily and instantly to mind as the most correct and literal French translations of the English names. All the relevant acronyms would start with M, just as they all end with M in English -- viz., your transposed bilingual acronyms in Canada. So I'm far from convinced he's using French acronyms. He appears to be attempting to use English acronyms -- or his best guess for what they would be. Anyone with a good enough knowledge of English and French wouldn't have a problem realizing the word order would have to change. Module de command could translate literally as "module of command" (abbreviated MC or MoC), but more accurately as "command module" (abbreviated correctly as CM). M appearing at the end of his acronym suggests an attempt at an English acronym. Whence "LCM" then? It isn't likely to be French, and it's ambiguous in English as a spacecraft designation. "Lunar command module?" That doesn't identify a spacecraft. What does LCM stand for instead then? Who knows? We're told we should just have figured it out. His AGC page references English-language documents. These give the proper acronyms and use them consistently. Further he claims to be an engineer, and consequently to have expert understanding of Apollo. The primary knowledge base of Apollo is written in English and consistently uses the proper acronyms. Claiming expert status invites readers to judge him by standards that apply to experts. An Apollo expert would (a) have read many documents in English, and I.m has; and (b) understand the need to communicate in another language using the proper idiom. Regarding the latter, if I walk up to a crane operator on the job site and say, "Be sure to set the RGS to compensate for the tension at the LWL bearing," it would only make sense if we both knew that those acronyms meant something. If I'm just making it up, the crane operator is just going to shrug and wonder what I mean. I can't say, "You should have known what I meant." No -- if I'm supposed to be directing a crane operator and I can't speak the language of crane operation correctly, I don't get to talk down to everyone who shrugs their shoulders. If I know crane operation, but the crane operator is Italian, the discussion might go something like this: Me (pointing): come si chiama questo? In inglese si dice "drum brake." Luigi: Ah, capisco! Si chiama "freno circolare." FC. Me: Va bene, faccia che il FC non s'aggiuste troppo leggiero. Dev'essere molto stretto. The last sentence would probably be accompanied by a hand-in-fist gesture, reinforcing that I want the brake set tightly. If Inquisitivemind doesn't want to be judged according to expert standards, then he shouldn't claim to be one. But of course if he comes clean and admits he's no expert, then he has to contend with the notion that everyone else here might know more about the subject than he.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 6, 2010 14:46:57 GMT -4
I will have to tell it to the next person I talk to who knows what a diacritical is.I used to work part-time in a major university library, in which a large portion of the collection was written in languages other than English. The computer terminals in our department were nice (for the time) IBM 348x terminals whose venerable Model M keyboards had changeable keycaps. We had caps that gave all the diacritical marks librarians use to transliterate foreign titles into the (diacritically annotated) Roman alphabet. You think a little umlaut is gonna bother me? ...it could be he's wrong in French, too.I don't believe his personal acronyms are for French phrases. I think he's taking a stab at English acronyms. ...to look it up in Spanish.El modulo de Servicio? These really aren't hard words in any European language. They're practically French words already, even in English. the correct response is, "Oh, I'm sorry. I'll try to use the correct term in the future," not "close enough.Indeed. The sincere interlocutor who is generally knowledgeable but simply doesn't know how the jargon goes in another language gets just such a mulligan. HB: The LCM's attitude is wrong here. ApolloHoax: What do you mean by "LCM?" HB: How you say? It is the part that remains in orbit, with the cone-shape and cylinder. AH: Ah, I understand. The correct abbreviation is CSM, for "command and service modules." Keep in mind that fakers try to intimidate their inexpert readers. HB: I'm an expert engineer and I'm telling you the LCM has the wrong DIY for the given twirly-stasis. Reader 1: What does he mean by LCM or DIY? What's "twirly-stasis?" Reader 2: Dunno, but he's an engineer so he must know what he's talking about. File it under "dazzle 'em with [excrement]." 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. The attitude is, "Whatever! I'm still sorta right." So they'll push past the error and try to focus on the mechanics of the nucleus to distract from the fact that they just described it as composed of proteins and neurons, orbited by "those little negatrons." Negatrons? You mean electrons? Yes, I figured out what you meant, but that doesn't save you from being a layman and not the expert you claim. Inquisitivemind's pattern of discussion is simply not consistent with sincerity. He's using all the tricks people use to create and maintain an illusion of competence among laymen. That's why he's so adamant that we all "must" be laymen. He needs there to be no competent questioning of his claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Nov 6, 2010 15:06:17 GMT -4
I'd love to use diacritics more often, but the combination of Google Chrome with Windows Vista means it can't be done for some reason. They work fine in word processor programs, though. They're used extensively in French and German; not that I regularly type in either language, but I had to learn both in high school. In the English and Dutch languages diatribes seem to be pretty passé; they mostly find their way into the language through loan words. I'm just fine with that. (Hey, you can't blame me for trying to cash in with a diacritic joke!  ) |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 6, 2010 15:35:25 GMT -4
They're used extensively in French and German......and are typically quite significant when they appear. In Italian there is a big difference between e ("and") and è ("is"). (Hey, you can't blame me for trying to cash in with a diacritic joke! )A møøse once bit my sister.
|
|
|
|
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 gillianren on Nov 6, 2010 16:46:26 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.
And yeah, there are a fair few words in Spanish which are identical to similar words which just don't have accents or tildes. And Gaelic . . . well, my class used to just sum it up as "because it's Gaelic, that's why," even without any diacriticals involved.
|
|
|
|
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 captain swoop on Nov 6, 2010 17:16:59 GMT -4
Wow, major thread hijack.
|
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 6, 2010 17:18:37 GMT -4
That would be true for a plane, but not in space.
Of course, the orbital body can lose altitude without losing its horizontal velocity; the attraction will slightly increase, so there will be a little vertical acceleration if the horizontal speed remains the same.Of course, it's not an helicopter; it doesn't behave as such, but still for the helicopter too there is an optimal trajectory for landing. 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. Bolded statement is utterly false and discredits any further analysis of your theory. Inquisitivemind, I direct you to Kepler's three Laws of planetary motion. Those laws apply to satellites as well. Kepler's laws are: 1. The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci. 2. A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. I direct your attention to Kepler's Second Law. If an orbiting satellite is either losing or gaining altitude, then the satellite's orbit has to be in an elliptical rather than a circular orbit, and the satellite's velocity has to be constantly changing in order to satisfy Kepler's Second Law. Why? Because by implication there are only two ways for a satellite to sweep out equal areas of space during equal periods of time... The first way is if the satellite is in a circular orbit. A satellite in a circular orbit maintains a constant altitude and therefore maintains a constant velocity in order to sweep out equal areas during equal intervals of time. Yet you stated that a satellite can lose altitude without changing velocity. The fact that the satellite is losing altitude means that the satellite obviously is not in a circular orbit which has a constant orbital altitude. The second way is if the satellite is in an elliptical orbit. For a satellite in an elliptical orbit to satisfy Kepler's Second Law of sweeping out equal areas during equal intervals of time, the satellite's velocity has to be continually changing. Likewise the satellite's altitude, since it is in an elliptical orbit, also is continuously changing. Again, for a satellite which is losing or gaining altitude, its orbit must be elliptical. And for a satellite in an elliptical orbit, the satellite's velocity must be continually changing so that its orbit sweeps out equal areas during equal periods of time. Thus an orbiting satellite which is losing altitude is: 1. In an elliptical orbit and 2. the satellite is gaining forward velocity rather than maintaining a constant velocity. Inquisitivemind, you can not even begin to hope to understand orbital mechanics if you can not understand Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion. |
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 6, 2010 17:23:43 GMT -4
Wow, major thread hijack. Sorry... |
|
)
