• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Scientific Publications

rynner2 said:
Ghostisfort said:
It's unusual for me to forget something I've written, but I don't recall losing an argument? Remind me?
Click to expand...
Most recently, you challenged me on my calculation of the position of the neutral point, although you were wrong because you didn't understand the maths (even if you don't admit it to yourself).

Then there was the time you thought atomic clocks had something to do with radioactivity. (And I don't think you're clear yet on the relationship between atomic time and ephemeris time.)

You don't recall losing any arguments because your default position is always carp, criticise, deny, ignore, nit-pick, and lay out smoke-screens of irrelevent quotations while you rapidly change course for somewhere safer.

I could say more, but I don't want to seem even more of a brute!
Click to expand...
It's rather rude to quote oneself, but I'm going to do it anyway.
kamalktk said:
12 pages later and no response to the experiments that were going to prove aether existed, that all disproved it.

I see this sort of thing regularly on other forums. Poster makes claim, proceeds to have to back down in face of evidence otherwise and posits backup claim, repeat until poster is able to make backup claim that circles around to original claim. Poster claims victory despite losing every point of debate.
Click to expand...
 
Your math's had nothing to do with the neutral point and therefore nothing to do with the subject discussed. (Repeats the same thing over and over, but no response) The old and tired "you don't understand" is of no use because it's used so often to get those such as yourself out of awkward situations. Try something new.

My understanding of atomic clocks can be examined by all and sundry @ http://www.n-atlantis.com/atomicclock.htm
I welcome any comments on mistakes or misunderstandings by you or kamalktk. I don't think I can do more?
12 pages later and no response to the experiments that were going to prove aether existed, that all disproved it.

I see this sort of thing regularly on other forums. Poster makes claim, proceeds to have to back down in face of evidence otherwise and posits backup claim, repeat until poster is able to make backup claim that circles around to original claim. Poster claims victory despite losing every point of debate.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you're going to have to put this archaeology into context. I don't recognise it.
 
Ghostisfort said:
Your math's had nothing to do with the neutral point and therefore nothing to do with the subject discussed.
Click to expand...
Now who's in denial!

What do you think my maths was about, if not the all-too simple case of the pseudo neutral point? (It wasn't about Lagrange Points, where the maths is more complex than a three line working.)

You appear to have the memory and attention span of a gnat, and it's pointless trying to debate with you. You come here looking for answers, but reject everything you're offered.
 
A short diversion I wrote while waiting for your reply, I'll get back to the thread.
A very strange tale.
One of Fort's most astute comments about astronomers is that they are more concerned with playing with numbers than with looking at stars and planets...It's the theoretical that most appeals.

I thought I'd check this out and I found a forum called, I think, UK Astronomy?
I asked the question and all those who replied confirmed Fort's observation.

I decided to ask a further question about my doubts regarding the accepted explanation/hypothesis of the tides and the Moons gravity.
Rather than giving me an answer, they started to exchange posts to each other about the subject and I played no further part other than observer.

It was amazing: posts back and forth, as if they had never before considered the possibility of controversy as part of astronomy. The debate became more and more heated with hellfire flames exchanged. I recall only one of the remarks verbatim as it's been so long ago, one astronomer told another that he needed "bitch slapping".

At this point the mod' stepped in threatening to ban anyone who continued the thread. It's all there in its splendid naivety in the archives of UK astronomy if anyone wants to check. Truly amazing.
 
381,550km, 384,403 km and 385,000 km?
The 384,403 would have to be rounded down by the usual method and 381,550 is so far away as to defy any explanation.
Maybe you can settle all of this by giving us the true value and its source?
Click to expand...
This is where you diverted the thread into the realms of mathematical games.
That these distances are given is a fact and therefore not a question, they are average orbital distances and in reality there can only be one. We know that there is one because the laser ranging would be a waste of time if it failed to give one. However, a true value is obviously not given. Why, is the laser distance not given...this is the question.

Below is also a question that you have not even addressed as a question:

In the 1969 edition of History of Rocketry & Space Travel by Wernher von Braun and Frederick I. Ordway III, the following statement is made concerning Apollo 11:
The approach to the Moon was so precise that the midcourse correction scheduled for 8:26 a.m. (EDT) on the 19th was cancelled. At a distance of 43,495 miles from the Moon, Apollo 11 passed the so-called "neutral" point, beyond which the Lunar gravitational field dominated that of Earth.

Quote:
The problem with all of this is, a neutral point of 43,495 miles would make the moon with not 1/6th (16%) the Earth's gravity, but 64%.
Encyclopedia Britannica reported the neutral point to be 20,520 miles from the Moon.
A Moon with 1/6 Earth's gravity should have a Neutral Point between 22,078 - 25,193 miles from the Moons surface.
http://www.xenophilia.com/zb0003u.htm
Click to expand...
The question is and always has been: What would the gravity of the Moon be as a percentage of Earth gravity if Wernher von Braun and Frederick I. Ordway III's distance for the neutral point were true? Nothing else...simple.
 
Ghostisfort said:
It's unusual for me to forget something I've written, but I don't recall losing an argument? Remind me?
Click to expand...

I think you may suffer from selective memory. For example, despite claiming on various occasions that 'academic scientists' control science and stifle anything they don't like, you have yet to name names. So that, at least, is one argument you've lost - or not justified. If there is such a cabal, tell us who they are and show us how they are controlling scientific thought around the world.
 
I fear that Ghostisfort is quite immersed in that river that runs through Paris.
 
Jerry_B said:
I think you may suffer from selective memory. For example, despite claiming on various occasions that 'academic scientists' control science and stifle anything they don't like, you have yet to name names. So that, at least, is one argument you've lost - or not justified. If there is such a cabal, tell us who they are and show us how they are controlling scientific thought around the world.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why do I have to repeat the same things over again?
Have you never heard of peer review, academic administration, scientific editorial? All of these combined are the 'cabal' and the whole thing is held together by the glue of education applied by government. We are all brainwashed from five years old with science in every subject and our academic achievement and finally our jobs are controlled by this science based meritocracy.
There is no need for the glue to be significant as long as we have consensus.

As a child of the scientific method you should already know this, but you seem unaware of your own enslavement by the establishment system of control.
 
InSeine would appeal to some of the purveyors of burlesque science on this forum or maybe just the.... bastard child?
I went through the hundreds of questions in Eysenck's test long ago and I was OK then. But they tell me "you're always the last to know".
Today FT, tomorrow the world. hahahahahahahahah!
Not tonight Josephine.hahahahahahah :rofl:
 
Ghostisfort said:
Today FT, tomorrow the world. hahahahahahahahah!
Not tonight Josephine.hahahahahahah :rofl:
Click to expand...
He's finally cracked. I could see it coming.

(So no point now asking him which part of my calculation he didn't like...)
 
Ghostisfort said:
Why do I have to repeat the same things over again?
Have you never heard of peer review, academic administration, scientific editorial? All of these combined are the 'cabal' and the whole thing is held together by the glue of education applied by government. We are all brainwashed from five years old with science in every subject and our academic achievement and finally our jobs are controlled by this science based meritocracy.
There is no need for the glue to be significant as long as we have consensus.

As a child of the scientific method you should already know this, but you seem unaware of your own enslavement by the establishment system of control.
Click to expand...

Bah - what rubbish. You're merely dodging having to prove your own claims, yet again. And whilst doing so, you also claim that anyone who doesn't share your views is a dupe. You haven't repeated anything in terms of proof, only in terms of your opinion. If you can't tell the difference between the two, you probably shouldn't be here.

It's quite simple - name names. Please tell us who is controlling things. Tell us how they're doing it. Tell us when they all sat down and decided that this is the way things would be done. Give us proof of the way this is happening. If it's 'the government', which one started it, when, who was involved, and what did they decide? How did they convince all other governments in the world to follow their plan?

Please don't dodge it by giving some nebulous statement nor by insulting those who ask you some straightforward questions.

That or admit that (a) you've lost an argument, and/or (b) that you are merely expressing your opnion, not stating facts.
 
To give you what you want would involve returning to history, something anathema to children of the system.

The alchemists set-up secret colleges to avoid interference from the church.
These colleges were eventually to become the Royal Society, the Royal being royal patronage and control that in time was passed on to parliamentary government.

The sceptics gained control of the Society backed by the patrons and used the same tactics used by the alchemists to drive out alchemy, thereby throwing out the baby with the bath water as most of the science claimed by the sceptics derived from Alchemy.

continuued, have to go.
 
Aha - more dodging. Look, either you know who's steering things or you don't. Like I said, name names. You either have proof about who did what and when, or you don't and we just have your opinion about the state of play - and we can judge from that how valid your opinion is.

Trying to make out that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is a dupe and a 'child of the system' is merely an attempt to dismiss anyone questioning you. You're forgetting where you're posting...
 
The names as far as we got are Newton, Boyle et al. Who were alchemists of a kind themselves, but decided that it was more comfortable to go along with the flow of rationalism and scepticism to keep themselves in a job.

This accounts for the neurotic fear that modern science has of what it chooses to call the paranormal. They not only exclude the religious like the alchemists did, but also exclude the alchemical that gave birth to the science that they cheekily call their own.

And so we see that from the very beginning, scientists were required to toe the politico-scientific party line...not exactly conducive to the free and honest pursuit of the workings of Mother Nature

This continues to this day, the only difference being that they also have to placate bankers and multinational companies to keep their jobs, not to mention the military. This means that certain ideas cannot be studied because they are likely to deplete the coffers of companies which in turn is likely to reduce the revenue of the banks.

For proof of this I suggest you Google for patents withdrawn by governments as "likely to be of military use", and are obviously not. ;)
 
Wow - even more dodging. So you don't have proof, it seems. Just - as I suspected - an opinion of the way things are, and how they developed.

You still haven't proven anything, especially in terms of naming names WRT to the alleged 'academic scientists' that steer it all. It still seems that this is reallty just an idea you have about how things are, perhaps influenced by a grudge against science rooted in bad teachers/schooling from a point earlier in your past.
 
You seem not to know the difference between recorded history and opinion?

I've posted before that I consider my education to have been a waste of time.
The only thing I can remember (also posted before) about my science teacher in the 1950's is that when he invited questions, I asked him how a transistor worked.
He got quite angry, swearing somewhat and told me to start thinking for myself. Not the most traumatic of events?
I did, however, take his advice. :)
 
Ghostisfort said:
You seem not to know the difference between recorded history and opinion?
Click to expand...

I can tell the difference, although I'm not always sure that you do as you don't seem to be able to answer my questions. I just want to know if your statements about 'academic scientists' controlling thought are based on facts or merely your opinions. If you can prove that there's some grand conspiracy being carried out by such people, you can show it via points from recorded history. You need to prove in particular who is doing such things today and how it's being orchestrated. If you can't, you're not talking about any sort of history nor current events, but just stating your own opinions. If you have proof to hand, please let us know what it is - if nothing else it would strengthen your argument immeasurably. That would be much better than having to face you simply dodging all of the time and not proving your point.
 
I see that you are back to your usual hectoring style demanding names when ALL of science is involved. I would have thought that the mention of peer reviewers, science editors, administrators and especially the word consensus would have told you this.

This is your example of me losing an argument:
I think you may suffer from selective memory. For example, despite claiming on various occasions that 'academic scientists' control science and stifle anything they don't like, you have yet to name names. So that, at least, is one argument you've lost - or not justified. If there is such a cabal, tell us who they are and show us how they are controlling scientific thought around the world.
Click to expand...
If you think they all do as they like, you would have to be writing from another planet.
I don't see that you can claim any kind of victory by asking questions that you know cannot be answered without recourse to history. The situation today being, that I would have to name every scientist on the planet.
 
No, that's more dodging from you again. Put simply, you can't name names - or refuse to do so, for some odd reason. The idea that it's all being controlled in some way is in fact your opinion, nothing more. Unless you can prove otherwise. Until you at least do that, anything you say about it can only be taken as your opinion, not as fact.

So, please, either prove to us as to who is steering such a nefarious consensus or don't try to fob us off with the idea that you really know what's going on and that the rest of us are dupes.
 
I've already done so several times and I refuse to answer any more of your ridiculous posts.
 
Ghostisfort said:
I've already done so several times and I refuse to answer any more of your ridiculous posts.
Click to expand...
HOORAY!
 
I'm not leaving, just not answering idiotic questions that I've already answered several times.
Tough, sorry. :D
 
Ghostisfort said:
I'm not leaving, just not answering idiotic questions that I've already answered several times.
Tough, sorry. :D
Click to expand...

You may have "answered" questions, but you haven't answered questions.
 
Even if you do ask, the chances of getting anything approximating an answer seem slim.
 
Ghostisfort said:
I've already done so several times and I refuse to answer any more of your ridiculous posts.
Click to expand...

No you have most definitely not given any proof, evidence, etc for any of what I'm asking for. You're just dodging again. Saying that my questions are 'idiotic' could be construed as flaming - which is a no-no here, and hardly the stance one should take if your want some useful discourse.

It seems you're just using the FTMB as a springboard for your own bit of axe-grinding and refusing to engage with anyone who questions that. So you don't like science because of what it excludes - but seem quite happy to exclude anything which doesn't match your world view. Pot - kettle - black etc. Add to that, you've now refused even to engage on a basic level on a discussion board.

How much longer do you think it's possible for you to try and convince us of your arguments and ideas if you can't even back up your statements?

AFAIK, you haven't proven anything I've asked about, but please give us links to the posts where you've proven that 'academic scientists' are actively engaged on a grand scale in controlling the thought, actions, research, theories, ideas etc of the worldwide scientific community.

If not, then please just admit that what you have stated is not fact but just your opinion and personal take on the way things appear to be to you. Simply refusing to engage with posters is nothing more than an act of exclusion - and I thought you were against such things...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top