|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 6, 2010 17:56:56 GMT -4
And if in this article they don't talk about the natural tendency of satellites to show the same side to the earth, it's because they think that people are familiarized with it, and don't need to be told this fact. ...The natural tendency of a spinning satellite is to transfer the rotational motion to the major axis -- the axis with the greatest moment of inertia. You were even shown, using basic physics, why this occurs. As we've laboriously pointed out, you've wrongly extended that special case to include all spacecraft. The notion that a spacecraft maintains its orientation relative to the local vertical and horizontal is not an uncommon misconception. Many beginning students have the same impression. But you only have to remind them gently that Newton's first law still applies, and they -- who generally have a sufficient grasp of physics -- will invariably say, "But of course, I had forgotten." ... In fact, Frederik Pohl described the most extreme scenario of tidal locking in his science fiction novel Gateway which was written way back in 1977. In his novel it was a Heechee spaceship trapped just above the event horizon of a black hole. Of course the long axis of the spaceship was tidally locked and as a result, the spaceship constantly pointed its tail end towards the black hole. Amazing that even a science fiction writer fully understood the basic orbital mechanics concept that tidal locking would eventually cause a roughly cylindrically shaped spaceship to always point either its nose or tail toward a black hole, depending on when end of the spaceship was heavier. Inquisitivemind also fails to understand why the Moon itself always presents the same face towards the Earth. The Moon's greatest moment of inertia towards the side of the Moon which constantly faces the Earth. In other words inquisitivemind, look up at the Moon and realize that the Apollo CSM would eventually point its longest axis of inertia and more specifically its SM engine bell towards the Moon, just as the Moon constantly points its major moment of inertia towards the Earth, keeping the same side of the Moon forever pointed towards the Earth. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 6, 2010 19:18:53 GMT -4
...a video saying how big and nasty Jay wasAnd that's the real reason I don't pay much attention to him. For him it's a highly emotional, highly personal battle. It has little or nothing to do with investigating the facts. ...and how you avoided a question about the Sibrel/Aldrin punch.Yes, I correctly ignored all his attempts to change the subject. I assured him we would discuss everything in turn, but that we would not abandon one topic in favor of another until I was satisfied with his answers. That never happened on the radiation topic, so that's when he resigned. His Gish Gallop got shut down. Today Jarrah claims that a qualfied physicist reviews his videos.Does he give a name and contact info? 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.First of all, he's not my peer. I have demonstrable professional and academic qualifications. He has none. Second, he defines me as his opponent, whom he has repeatedly accused of being a liar and worse. Why is my opinion of his claims now all of a sudden so relevant and valid? Why am I all of a sudden the reviewer sine qua non? Any disputation I raise, no matter how valid, could be dismissed as somehow "biased." Since he does not respect the opinion of his designated reviewer, the demand is meaningless. Third, we began a sort of review under the terms I set down and to which he agreed. That lasted a very short time, after which he fled back to his safe environment to do damage control by smack-talking the reviewer. If that is to be the pattern of his response to review, then it would be wasted on him. I think he implies that because you have not, it is 'undebunkable.'Hilarious. He decides he's "undebunkable" because the one person to whom he's created an obsessive fixation doesn't pay him the right attention. Sorry, I'm not going to play into his increasingly pitiful cries for attention. He was invited to appear before qualified experts in his area, to defend his claims, arranged and paid for by someone else -- and he entirely ignored the invitation. All he would have to do is show up. And, of course, prove that he knows what he's talking about. He's had ample opportunity for a meaningful review. This is just more of his silly posturing.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 6, 2010 19:19:39 GMT -4
Here is what fr.wikipedia.org says
and
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 6, 2010 19:24:12 GMT -4
In fact, Frederik Pohl described the most extreme scenario of tidal locking in his science fiction novel Gateway which was written way back in 1977. See also Larry Niven's story "Neutron Star." |
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 6, 2010 20:19:35 GMT -4
Why is my opinion of his claims now all of a sudden so relevant and valid? Why am I all of a sudden the reviewer sine qua non? He never had a father.... |
|
|
|
Post by slang on Nov 6, 2010 21:07:58 GMT -4
Let's not add immaculate conception to his long list of overstated qualifications.  |
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 6, 2010 21:11:12 GMT -4
Great. Thanks. Now I have the audio-equivalent of an image of Jay's slightly-nasal lilting tenor saying, "Jarrah - I AM YOUR FATHER!"
<head explodes>
|
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 6, 2010 21:16:02 GMT -4
Theinquiringmind (hunchbacked on YouTube) clearly suffers from a particular type of mental disorder. He is a likable kind of guy in the sense that he is very polite and always chooses very nice music for his videos. But on the other hand he is extremely delusional and will not see cold hard truths which are clearly presented to him -- truths which everybody else clearly sees.
He further claims that he is the only person, after more than 40 years, to have systematically examined all of the Apollo photographs as presented in the ALSJ, and that he is the first person to clearly see the deliberate "evidence" left behind by people or "fakers" who had to fake the Apollo photographs.
I am not attacking theenquiringmind. I am simply reiterating statements which he has made to me and letting all of you know that you have little chance of leading him to reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 6, 2010 21:48:51 GMT -4
Great. Thanks. Now I have the audio-equivalent of an image of Jay's slightly-nasal lilting tenor saying, "Jarrah - I AM YOUR FATHER!" <head explodes> Whose?  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 6, 2010 22:44:59 GMT -4
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." I'd be more worried about those..... |
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Nov 6, 2010 23:36:24 GMT -4
Jarrah had a "physicist" look over his videos?
Then why did he so earnestly avoid having one look at his claims before, when I asked for one to do so?
Can we find out what qualifications this reviewer has? Or perhaps is Jarrah's person someone down the pub he found that said "Yer, I know fisicks"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 7, 2010 0:18:32 GMT -4
Probably someone who teaches Physical Education.
|
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 7, 2010 7:06:00 GMT -4
I think he implies that because you have not, it is 'undebunkable.'Hilarious! He decides he's "undebunkable" because the one person to whom he's created an obsessive fixation doesn't pay him the right attention. Sorry, I'm not going to play into his increasingly pitiful cries for attention. He did a search on Clavius and found his name once, and I think he was miffed. I think he wants a whole section devoted to him on Clavius and probably feels put out that the Grandchild of the hoax theory has not quite made the same impact as others. I guess he realises now that the Great Satan Windley is ignoring him, and that is hurting. He's a funny boy. |
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Nov 7, 2010 15:11:10 GMT -4
... I think he wants a whole section devoted to him on Clavius ... Wouldn't it first require a note from his Mother granting us permission? |
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 7, 2010 17:38:35 GMT -4
... I think he wants a whole section devoted to him on Clavius ... Wouldn't it first require a note from his Mother granting us permission? That's funny. I really had to smile at JW's latest effort, which is a real attack on me. Crikey, he even had good things to say about Jay as a result, although the compliments were somewhat veiled and managed to take a swipe at me in the process. I think he referred to Clavius as the 'top debunking site on the web'. Obviously my site does not register as a top debunking site with Jarrah. That's not the intention. I bought the domain about 9 months ago, and have barely touched it. But there again, I'm not in some kind of competition with Jay. I'm a physicist, and do not have Jay's practical experience or professional knowledge in spacecraft design and the history of flight. There is simply no way I wish to try and produce another Clavius for many reasons. Jay's site does a sterling job for a start. Jay is also considered a world authority on the subject, so some oik who hasn't even touched a spacecraft component, let alone helped design a spacecraft, is hardly in a position to shadow his site. Debunking the moon hoax is best left to Jay. In fact, I'd say that Jarrah has answered his own question, and it might explain why he gets one mention at Clavius. It debunks the moon hoax not the person, and given the brown watery substance that Jarrah pushes out from his channel, I doubt it is very fitting to have pages dedicated to him at such a high quality site. It would somewhat lower the tone. If Jay were to add some Jarrah debunk pages, it would look a little like a caravan being parked on the lawn at Windsor castle. That's why I have my site, to offer a few pages to Jarrah. It is probably more fitting that an oik like me deals with him. He'll get his few pages of fame if he wants. Sadly it won't be from the person he wants it from. It's kind of my way of telling him that 'Only a handful of people and I really give you any time.' He does not see that. Apparently JW does no think I am physicist, despite holding a PhD and professional accreditation. I have also shown a psychotic hatred for Jarrah and Rene from day one. The fact that I have a passion for my subject and feel aggrieved that a charlatan like Rene has left a legacy of ignorance because he dabbled in a subject that took me 14 years to qualify in has nothing to do with it. But I guess respect for other people's hard work and achievements mean nothing to Jarrah and his ilk. When I first read this thread and saw the way IM was referring to Jay, I was quite angered. It was not rude, but certainly very patronizing. That's how I feel about Rene. And that it what my site dedicated to, not debunking the moon hoax par se. I have other plans for it too, like developing some physics pages, and there are personal and professional reasons for that. OK, I admit I have a psychotic hatred for Rene, I'll own up to that I don't feel that way towards Jarrah, and have even tried to reason with him. He just can't get past his tight wound up ball of hatred and venom. In fact, I am one of the few people who actually feel sorry for the kid. I've even dissuaded people from producing some fairly unsavory attacks about him. I have also plagiarized Clavius too, so I cannot accuse Rene of plagiarizing his ideas on relativity, despite the fact I know the subject of relativity fairly well - I taught it for several years and know where Rene got his material from, and the only way he could arrive at his conclusions. Crikey, I even recognised the words he used immediately. I was not aware that quoting from another source was plagiarism. I always thought plagiarizing was copying an idea and selling it as your own to gain benefit - as Rene did. I have a page to Bill Kaysing on my site, and robbed a few words from Clavius, Bill's own site and Wiki to save me some time. Why reinvent the wheel when the work has been done? The page to Bill is actually quite respectful. I have to add the references to the website, but that's on my to do list. Of course, Jarrah pushes out his video before I get chance, create himself straw man and poison the well. Jarrah has a skill at combining as many logical fallacies in one argument as humanly possible. I think his best is to create an conclusion from five at once. The boy does well. Rant over... sorry folks... |
|
;D
