Another putrid, stomach churning effort of false condolence from JW Studios. Jarrah did nothing more than to use Dr O'Leary to prop up his hateful and twisted obsession with Jay. If anything JW should be offering an apology for using Dr O'Leary's good name in vain, and not producing another nauseating, self promoting video. Utterly sickening and utterly inappropriate.
Maybe he never actually believed it and just wants to get a degree as a way to add credibility to his moon hoax scam. "I've got a physics degree and I'm telling you the moon landings were faked... now buy my DVD!"
If Jarrah is really doing an undergrad in astrophysics I presume he aims to get something out of it?
There is no point really, doing a course just for the sake of it or for Jarrah to do it just because it will convince people that his academic credentials give him the right to declare the Apollo missions were hoaxed.
But I guess if he would travel halfway across the planet to confront the likes of Phil Plait, Adam Savage and Bill Kaysing's daughter in America there really is no limit to how far he will go with furthering his honest-to-Armstrong moon hoax lifestyle.
University fees have gone up a lot in the past year or so (at least where I'm from - Ireland). Where I live its about 2 grand a year for most third level institutions, that is a hell of a lot of money.
If Jarrah will be spending all that money on his education, he should be looking at the jobs opportunities, where he could go with it. If he spends tuition fees every year he should use it for more than just adding something extra to his MoonFaker extravaganza.
If he spends tuition fees every year he should use it for more than just adding something extra to his MoonFaker extravaganza.
I doubt he is studying at degree level. But that is for Jarrah to prove me wrong, and as I have said, if he is studying for a BSc then best of luck to him. I'd even offer to help him with his education. If he is bettering himself that way, then it is a good thing. I hope it gives him chance to see some of the errors with his arguments, and how real physicists approach the world.
Given the 'conversations' I had with him about relativity, I doubt he has passed the entry requirements for degree. For example: In the UK, relativity is taught at pre-University physics level. To enter for a degree program, he would be conversant in the basic concepts of relativistic mechanics - not just quote some obscure forumlas.
The last time I saw him comment about relativity, he had no clue. He even failed to understand that when Ralph Rene offered his critique of the Hafele and Keating experiment, Ralph spoke entirely in terms of special relativity. Jarrah argued that because Ralph has discussed general relativity in another chapter of his book, I was wrong to accuse Ralph of not discussing general relativity. He missed my point entirely. Whether Ralph devoted another chapter to general relativity in his book or not, Ralph failed to mention it in context of the Hafele and Keating experiment. Had Ralph Rene understood that Hafele and Keating measured the combined effects of special and general realtivity on their clocks, he might have understood Hafele and Keating's treatment of their data.
Jarrah failed to follow that simple observation. I doubt he can be objective about anything, nor does he possess the comprehension skills to study at that level. I doubt he possesses the mathematical skills.
As I said though, I might be wrong. I wish him luck if it is true. I'm sure his papers would be interesting though, quite a hoot. I wonder if he can work out percentages and count yet.
For example: In the UK, relativity is taught at pre-University physics level.
I haven't followed the happenings at my undergraduate alma mater (Cornell), but a former roommate who does told me a while ago that they no longer teach relativity in undergraduate physics!
I haven't confirmed this, but if true they've made a big mistake. Relativity is one of the foundations of 20th century physics (though quantum theory -- the other major 20th century physics development -- has arguably made a greater difference to everyday life) and I can't imagine not teaching it.
Both relativity and quantum can be famously hard to teach because they're both so counter-intuitive to those used to thinking in terms of Newtonian mechanics. But I think the solution is simply to teach it earlier. I believe "intuition" is something we learn, not something we're born with, so the best way to handle material that seems counter-intuitive to older people is to simply teach it when they're younger and have fewer preconceptions and baggage about how the world works.
This came up in a discussion with my roommate about the view that what we call "magnetism" isn't really a distinct force but really just a manifestation of special relativity on the electrostatic force. Normally we think of relativity as irrelevant unless you're moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, but the electrostatic force is so strong that the effects of special relativity kick in and become significant at very modest velocities of just meters/sec.
This blew my mind when I first heard it many years ago. It really cemented one of the most beautiful aspects of both math and physics for me: that one can often arrive at the same result by entirely different theoretical routes.
I'm appalled at what they no longer teach in computer science and engineering curricula, my two primary fields. It's not that they're pushing older topics out of the way in order to make room for new thought. It's that they're transforming the programs into something that's closer to vocational training that a science education.
Clearly Jarrah White has an interest in science and technology, but it doesn't appear he has much aptitude for it. It would be a shame if he wasted the money and a spot in the university enrollment just to try to give his hoax claims more undeserved credibility.
From my years in college teaching I can say that Jarrah strikes me as a "gunner." These are the students who are utterly convinced they already know the material and spend the class time arguing with the teacher rather than learning what the class has to offer. If that's the case, then my dismay extends not only to Jarrah but to those unfortunate enough to share a class with him.
Given Jarrah's polemical record, if he were to enter any institution of higher learning it really ought to be law school. Lawyers do whatever is necessary to serve their clients, and that rarely involves a dispassionate search for the truth. He'd be a natural.
He'd have to take voice training if he were ever to become a trial lawyer.
I'm appalled at what they no longer teach in computer science and engineering curricula, my two primary fields. It's not that they're pushing older topics out of the way in order to make room for new thought.
When I was studying as a graduate, my supervisor was the undergraduate admissions tutor. He explained to me how he had to fill 150 places. He had to get it correct to within 3 or 4 places over the quota, but no less (It was an odd equation which was related to government funding).
The major headache for him was that he had in excess of 1000 applicants and each of them still had to sit their A-levels. The course offer was A-level AAB (A in physics, A in mathematics and B in another related subject). The problem came at interview. He explained that all applicants had to be predicted AAA or AAB at A-level to get an interview. Getting the 150 + 3-4 correct was a balancing act, but not that difficult. However, what made his equation very difficult was understanding the spread in mathematical ability. He had over 1000 applicants, all predicted A at A-level mathematics, but the spread in ability was difficult to understand. Once at university, he could have a student who passed A-level mathematics with an A grade, but was simply good at answering exam questions rather than being able to apply the concepts.
The example he cited was that some successful candidates had problems with derivatives that were not expressed dy/dx. Give them i = dq/dt, or a = dv/dt and they were stumped. Quite simply, they were taught the language required to pass exams and not the concepts.
I recall being taught basic matrix manipulation at the age of 11. By the time I studied A-level, matrices had been removed from the A-level syllabus. The syllabus has been further diluted since I passed my A-levels in 1989. Matrix algebra is central to modern physics. It is practically impossible to study quantum mechanics without using it, and advancing into the world of tensors without matrix algebra is impossible.
A-level physics has taken a backward step in terms of mathematical rigour. Calculus is no longer a major constituent, and many derivations have been removed from the course. A fundamental part of physics at is developing the skill of moving from concept to theory via mathematical routes, and not simply manipulating equations given on data sheets. For example, once the step up to university is made, one needs to be able to take Schrodinger's equation and apply it to different problems. Once this step had been taken, one has a physicist that can apply models and begin to develop theories. Getting students used to these concepts at an early age is crucial to them maturing in their field.
Clearly Jarrah White has an interest in science and technology, but it doesn't appear he has much aptitude for it.
I would go one further and said that he has also demonstrated he does not have objectivity to study science. I guess that can be included as part of aptitude. During compulsory science education in the UK, children are taught to be objective about concepts. It is a key skill that is central to their examination.
From my years in college teaching I can say that Jarrah strikes me as a "gunner." These are the students who are utterly convinced they already know the material and spend the class time arguing with the teacher rather than learning what the class has to offer.
Ralph Rene did spring to mind when I heard about Jarrah and his BSc. Ralph claimed that he was always arguing with his teachers.