Post by JayUtah on Nov 17, 2005 19:08:17 GMT -4
Sorry. I haven't even finished my argument and you've already made up your mind that I'm clueless.
That determination is based also on your experience at BAUT. I have attempted personally to discuss specific topics with you, and I have received little assurance that you care to learn, or are capable of learning.
The spacesuit backpack oxygen limit is not a wee fact that NASA would not be aware of. They've cited three different explanations for the same suit.
But this is common in history. NASA is a very large organization with many people writing many things over long periods of time. If you run across claims that seem to be contradictory, you have to look deeper in to each source and see if there might be a legitimate explanation. Did an engineer write it? Did a P.R. guy write it? Was one written in 1965 and the other in 1972? Are they referring to two different models of the space suit?
You have to devise and answer those deeper questions before you can conclude that there is fraud afoot.
If I give three versions of every argument I make you would be calling me a troll again.
Yes, because you are one person. NASA is many thousands of people. We can legitimately hold individuals to different standards of consistency that those to which we hold large organizations.
Interestingly, you claim scientists, i.e., experts, would lie because they are paid to. Well, that's exactly what I've been saying here all a long.
No. As I said, do not mix legal contexts with what's going on here. An expert who appears in court has been paid by one side or the other to spin the facts or give an opinion favorable to the side that paid him. This is not generally true of all experts, nor true of the same experts outside a courtroom setting, nor possible in all legal questions. Not every question has enough "wiggle room" to allow for expert testimony that differs markedly from side to side.
I am not paid to espouse certain principles in my job. I am paid only when I am right -- that is, when my theories accurately predict how the universe really behaves.
We know the law misuses science. That's why we don't consider science as applied to legal questions a very good example of how to practice science.
There was one person on BA's board and one person here last night who agree with me that space is cold.
If I'm thinking of the same posts as you, then no they did not agree with you that space "is cold". Some objects in space can become cold if they are shaded from incoming energy. In interstellar space, for example, an object would eventually become very cold because it can efficiently radiate its heat away into space.
Near a star, such as in cislunar space, the question is more complicated. The side of an object facing the sun will be rather hot, and the side facing away will be rather cold. This is not because there is an ambient but because radiant heat transfer naturally behaves that way. You can't radiate away heat in a direction from which heat is arriving.
I believe in the space program, I just don't believe they wento or landed on the moon.
This presents a problem because much of what you're arguing is impossible for Apollo would also be impossible for the rest of the space program. The early space shuttle suits were essentially the same as Apollo suits. If you argue that they worked in Earth orbit but on on the lunar surface, then you have to explain in detail what's different.
I've answered as many as I could. Can you imagine someone calling you a troll because you cannot answer 100 querstions a day..?
The problem at BAUT was that you asked several questions and tried to open several different discussions at once, and then complained because you couldn't keep up that pace. The other posters were urging you to stick to one subject at a time, but you refused to do it.
Charts were posted evidencing that the commnad module was in free fall from at least 80,000 feet. I incorrectly stated 200,000 feet because the one chart is so vauge.
But several people -- including myself -- attempted at length to help you understand the chart (which wasn't vague to us). But rather than considering that your original interpretation of the chart was erroneous, you stuck to your guns and still maintained that the CM was in free-fall. People are willing to go to enormous lengths to help others understand, but they dry up very quickly when those efforts are just brushed off.
Hardly a reason to ban the most popular newest member.
The reason you were banned was that you continued in your original beliefs without any indication that you had read and understood what many, many people were telling you about why you were wrong. People who can't admit when they're wrong generally don't enjoy a lot of tolerance.
Perhaps you think that you might not have been "really" wrong and that those who disagreed with you simply have a different -- but no better -- viewpoint than yours. If that's true, then that's what makes you a laughingstock. Nothing's funnier that someone who can't see what everyone else can see.
What approach should I use to post my theory..?
Well, first identify and verify everything that you simply assumed to be true. Your biggest mistake so far is that you don't seem to be very conversant with Apollo facts.
Then show why your expectations are valid before measuring NASA's claims against them.
I'ver already admitted that I'm not an expert in the field, so you're wrong on claiming that I pretend to be. I'm simply giving my opinion on why I believe this never happened.
But we're not talking about something on which there can be two substantive opinions. We're talking about an allegation of fact. Either Apollo succeeded or it did not, and one of those is the right answer and the other is wrong.
You can keep using the word "opinion" all you want, but the nature of your claim is an allegation of fact regardless of label. You are making a statement that is either true or false, not a statement that is based on some appropriate subjective difference.
You can't say, "It's a fact that abortion is wrong," because there are legitimate differences of viewpoint on what it means for something to be wrong or right. Stating an opinion as a fact doesn't make it a fact. Conversely, you can't say, "It's my opinion that you're a child molester." That's an allegation of fact, and the subject of your statement either fits the definition of child molester or he does not. Stating an allegation of fact as if it were an opinion doesn't keep it from being an allegation of fact.
Every opinion or allegation of fact has the right to be heard. That doesn't mean every opinion is of equal value or every allegation of fact is based on truth. You are being heard, but you seem to want to think that you have a right -- as the owner of an opinion -- to enjoy some manner of respect for your opinion.
No. That's not how the world works. The value of an opinion lies in how well that opinion has been thought out. And since you haven't bothered to educate yourself on the appropriate underlying principles, your opinion is fairly worthless. The value of an allegation of fact similarly lies in how well that allegation has been supported by observation, sound reason, and appropriate expertise. You are simply measuring Apollo against your naive expectations; then when there is a discrepancy, you blame Apollo.
You don't seem to get the picture that it's fundamentally contradictory for you to beg for leniency since you're not an expert, and that the same time blame NASA for not meeting your layman's expectations.
That determination is based also on your experience at BAUT. I have attempted personally to discuss specific topics with you, and I have received little assurance that you care to learn, or are capable of learning.
The spacesuit backpack oxygen limit is not a wee fact that NASA would not be aware of. They've cited three different explanations for the same suit.
But this is common in history. NASA is a very large organization with many people writing many things over long periods of time. If you run across claims that seem to be contradictory, you have to look deeper in to each source and see if there might be a legitimate explanation. Did an engineer write it? Did a P.R. guy write it? Was one written in 1965 and the other in 1972? Are they referring to two different models of the space suit?
You have to devise and answer those deeper questions before you can conclude that there is fraud afoot.
If I give three versions of every argument I make you would be calling me a troll again.
Yes, because you are one person. NASA is many thousands of people. We can legitimately hold individuals to different standards of consistency that those to which we hold large organizations.
Interestingly, you claim scientists, i.e., experts, would lie because they are paid to. Well, that's exactly what I've been saying here all a long.
No. As I said, do not mix legal contexts with what's going on here. An expert who appears in court has been paid by one side or the other to spin the facts or give an opinion favorable to the side that paid him. This is not generally true of all experts, nor true of the same experts outside a courtroom setting, nor possible in all legal questions. Not every question has enough "wiggle room" to allow for expert testimony that differs markedly from side to side.
I am not paid to espouse certain principles in my job. I am paid only when I am right -- that is, when my theories accurately predict how the universe really behaves.
We know the law misuses science. That's why we don't consider science as applied to legal questions a very good example of how to practice science.
There was one person on BA's board and one person here last night who agree with me that space is cold.
If I'm thinking of the same posts as you, then no they did not agree with you that space "is cold". Some objects in space can become cold if they are shaded from incoming energy. In interstellar space, for example, an object would eventually become very cold because it can efficiently radiate its heat away into space.
Near a star, such as in cislunar space, the question is more complicated. The side of an object facing the sun will be rather hot, and the side facing away will be rather cold. This is not because there is an ambient but because radiant heat transfer naturally behaves that way. You can't radiate away heat in a direction from which heat is arriving.
I believe in the space program, I just don't believe they wento or landed on the moon.
This presents a problem because much of what you're arguing is impossible for Apollo would also be impossible for the rest of the space program. The early space shuttle suits were essentially the same as Apollo suits. If you argue that they worked in Earth orbit but on on the lunar surface, then you have to explain in detail what's different.
I've answered as many as I could. Can you imagine someone calling you a troll because you cannot answer 100 querstions a day..?
The problem at BAUT was that you asked several questions and tried to open several different discussions at once, and then complained because you couldn't keep up that pace. The other posters were urging you to stick to one subject at a time, but you refused to do it.
Charts were posted evidencing that the commnad module was in free fall from at least 80,000 feet. I incorrectly stated 200,000 feet because the one chart is so vauge.
But several people -- including myself -- attempted at length to help you understand the chart (which wasn't vague to us). But rather than considering that your original interpretation of the chart was erroneous, you stuck to your guns and still maintained that the CM was in free-fall. People are willing to go to enormous lengths to help others understand, but they dry up very quickly when those efforts are just brushed off.
Hardly a reason to ban the most popular newest member.
The reason you were banned was that you continued in your original beliefs without any indication that you had read and understood what many, many people were telling you about why you were wrong. People who can't admit when they're wrong generally don't enjoy a lot of tolerance.
Perhaps you think that you might not have been "really" wrong and that those who disagreed with you simply have a different -- but no better -- viewpoint than yours. If that's true, then that's what makes you a laughingstock. Nothing's funnier that someone who can't see what everyone else can see.
What approach should I use to post my theory..?
Well, first identify and verify everything that you simply assumed to be true. Your biggest mistake so far is that you don't seem to be very conversant with Apollo facts.
Then show why your expectations are valid before measuring NASA's claims against them.
I'ver already admitted that I'm not an expert in the field, so you're wrong on claiming that I pretend to be. I'm simply giving my opinion on why I believe this never happened.
But we're not talking about something on which there can be two substantive opinions. We're talking about an allegation of fact. Either Apollo succeeded or it did not, and one of those is the right answer and the other is wrong.
You can keep using the word "opinion" all you want, but the nature of your claim is an allegation of fact regardless of label. You are making a statement that is either true or false, not a statement that is based on some appropriate subjective difference.
You can't say, "It's a fact that abortion is wrong," because there are legitimate differences of viewpoint on what it means for something to be wrong or right. Stating an opinion as a fact doesn't make it a fact. Conversely, you can't say, "It's my opinion that you're a child molester." That's an allegation of fact, and the subject of your statement either fits the definition of child molester or he does not. Stating an allegation of fact as if it were an opinion doesn't keep it from being an allegation of fact.
Every opinion or allegation of fact has the right to be heard. That doesn't mean every opinion is of equal value or every allegation of fact is based on truth. You are being heard, but you seem to want to think that you have a right -- as the owner of an opinion -- to enjoy some manner of respect for your opinion.
No. That's not how the world works. The value of an opinion lies in how well that opinion has been thought out. And since you haven't bothered to educate yourself on the appropriate underlying principles, your opinion is fairly worthless. The value of an allegation of fact similarly lies in how well that allegation has been supported by observation, sound reason, and appropriate expertise. You are simply measuring Apollo against your naive expectations; then when there is a discrepancy, you blame Apollo.
You don't seem to get the picture that it's fundamentally contradictory for you to beg for leniency since you're not an expert, and that the same time blame NASA for not meeting your layman's expectations.