Indeed, Kome -- my point was that in fact, Bevis didn't respond in a meaningful way to even to that portion.

For a while, I've been trying to think about how Bevis thinks. It's as if he understands all ideas and words as being on a level plane. If something is said, he judges it as being as significant as anything else that is said. He doesn't seem to be able to understand that authority doesn't derive from who said what, but from the rightness (and replicability) of the ideas concerned.

This strikes me as fundamentally a religious problem. He accords different thoughts more authority only on the basis of political weight. That weight, of course, changes according to the mood of the time as seen by the political figures he fetishises.

He'll gladly say anything, but won't trouble to understand anything.

So... he must be a troll, no?

I've tried to think him sincere (Skinhead, I still suspect is; Rush_Limburgh_sent_me, probably never was), but over time, I can't believe he is.

For months I've considered him the very worst advocate for Christianity or religiosity in general.

He's an atheist.

Actually, going to Dumbass's website, tracking down the Barr quote, I noticed something factually incorrect. On his website's quote section, he has "James Barr (b. 1941)". He was born in 1924 and died in 2006. He might wanna fix that typo if he wants to continue the illusion of being so damn infalliable and knows more than anyone about anything.

PartTimeBuddha: Indeed, Kome -- my point was that in fact, Bevis didn't respond in a meaningful way to even to that portion.

I'm just saying that I didn't miss any negative in the quotation, because I wasn't responding to the quotation.

Kome please, accept my apologies. I skimmed too quickly and assumed too much.

Aside from all the Bevets slime this thread is now covered in, does anybody else find it a bit discomforting that we're talking about wavelengths that are longer than the universe?

Jektal: Aside from all the Bevets slime this thread is now covered in, does anybody else find it a bit discomforting that we're talking about wavelengths that are longer than the universe?

I think it's freaking awesome. But then, I'm a huge nerd. :)

PartTimeBuddha: Kome please, accept my apologies. I skimmed too quickly and assumed too much.

No harm done. Things like that happen.

Jektal: Aside from all the Bevets slime this thread is now covered in, does anybody else find it a bit discomforting that we're talking about wavelengths that are longer than the universe?

Gotta say, I had a hard time understanding TFA, so I tried to avoid commenting on it. Is that a bad thing?

Bah rah rah.

Think PLANETARY VACUUM CLEANER EFFECT. Space is vast and wide, but not entirely empty. There are very tiny bits of ungravitated dust, micro-ice, gases, and ions. Okay, now think carefully about this. As a planet orbits the star, it sucks up all of this loose stuff into the gravity field and leaves a cleaner orbital path.

Jupiter acts like a floating rock cleaner by its massive gravity field, but planets with atmospheres tend to leave a more cleared out trail behind them.

An interstellar probe going into the orbital path of a planet basically hits a volume of space without acres of microdust acting like a nearly unnoticeable slowdown effect and thusly it the result is like a car hitting a patch of ice. The resistance is there, but not as big as it used to be. Using an planetary gravity field pretty much requires avoiding the atmosphere and hitting the "cleared orbital space" means an ever-so-slight speed boost.

// Doesn't really take a rocket scientist to figure these painfully obvious things out.

It's a Mass Relay

Gridlock

It sucks up all of this loose stuff into the gravity field and leaves a cleaner orbital path.

Gentlemen! We have a winner!

Gravity gets stronger the further it is from a mass, AND objects accelerate more against the power of this gravity!

// Doesn't really take a rocket scientist to figure these painfully obvious things out.

I rather think it might.

Browncoat: It would have been way cooler if they had called it the "Rut-Roh" radiation.

I prefer the "Oh, SNAP!" effect myself, since it can be applied to anything.

Actually dark energy is a very exciting concept in physics. It will probably bring about a small (if not large) change to the standard model and earn a Nobel Prize.

Dark Energy


Of course Bevets could win one sooner with his revolutionary ideas, but I doubt it.

PartTimeBuddha:
Gentlemen! We have a winner!

Gravity gets stronger the further it is from a mass, AND objects accelerate more against the power of this gravity!

Uh, no and yes.

No. Think of a big gooey wad of gum orbiting a star. Space dust and other micro / macro stuff gets stuck in the gum. What happens to space dust following the path of the gooey planet? It is already stuck in the planet.

I made you a pretty picture quick and sloppy to give you an idea of what is obvious to anyone with lateral thinking capacity.



And YES space probes have used gravity wells to accelerate along a differing path for many decades to great success.

Further reading for PartTimeBudda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist (pops)

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/grav/primer.html (pops)

Less space dust to plow through equals an instant speed up until it hits the space dust again.

Space dust is not uniform in dispersion and may cluster in clouds or thin out in the wake of a planet passing by.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_dust (pops)

QU!RK1019: an ancient morality tale about the creation of man and woman.

Actually there are two in the Genesis. And they contradict each other.

I didn't come in here to say this, but in effect, Bevets has it right. Time passes more slowly in a high gravity field, more quickly outside it. As probes draw away from the sun, time there is passing more quickly, so to us, they seem to be accelerating faster than expected.

Gridlock: And YES space probes have used gravity wells to accelerate along a differing path for many decades to great success.

So... would that or would that not assist the Enterprise in slingshotting around the Sun in order to travel back in time? This knowledge is of critical importance for my fanfic involving me and Deanna Troi my research in astrophysics.

*cough*

What?

Ex-Republican: Actually there are two in the Genesis. And they contradict each other.

You would think the guy who wrote Genesis would have noticed that he repeated himself. Either that, or he did it on purpose for some reason. Or maybe when he finished paragraph 1, he forgot he'd written it and re-wrote it again and then forgot to proofread. I just don't know.

GilRuiz1: Ex-Republican: Actually there are two in the Genesis. And they contradict each other.

You would think the guy who wrote Genesis would have noticed that he repeated himself. Either that, or he did it on purpose for some reason. Or maybe when he finished paragraph 1, he forgot he'd written it and re-wrote it again and then forgot to proofread. I just don't know.

He did the same thing for Noah's Ark, too. The writer must have some weird antagonistic and perserverative disorder.

A recent study by Magic McCulloch suggests that "Unruh radiation" may be the culprit.

More like Mumm-ra radiation.



BY THE POWER OF GREYSKULL!

/or something, childhood's become a bit of a blur

Kome: He did the same thing for Noah's Ark, too. The writer must have some weird antagonistic and perserverative disorder.

Where's Tatsuma when you need him? He'd know if that is some sort of ancient Israelite literary style, or whether the writer was just psychotic or had the worst memory in the world.

Gridlock: Nice graphic.

However, microimpacts from "space dust" or "space wind" might change the trajectory of a "probe", but it won't necessarily slow it down. If the impact is to the front, it might decelerate, but the impact may also come from behind, and accelerate it, too. It depends on the relative speed and angle of the probe to the obstructing material, which has it's own speed and angle.

WTF would a probe accelerate when it hits a pocket of pure vacuum?

It would simply cease to change speed and trajectory.

star_miner: 13 mm/s, 0.11 mm/s and 2 mm/s respectively

Truckin'.

bphlater: GIS for celestial body

Best part of the thread.

Bevets: Kome

I'm not getting into a debate or argument this time. Astronomy and all this stuff is outside my area of expertise.

You have more posts in this thread than anyone else.

I'm not talking about the content of TFA, now am I? I'm making snarky comments, pointing out how dumb you are (as always), and correcting someone who misattributed something to me. There aren't really many threads today that get my mojo working, so I'm in a lot of places I'm not normally in. It happens.

Most people manage to be more concise when they have nothing to contribute.

Yea, you are relatively quiet in evolution threads and religion threads. I'll give you that.

On his website's quote section, he has "James Barr (b. 1941)". He was born in 1924 and died in 2006.

Thank you Kome. Please let me know if you find any more errors.

The quote you attribute to Arthur Keith that he never said. That's a pretty glaring error. You might wanna fix that.

Oh, and you fail to mention after some of Karl Popper's quotes that he later changed his view after, you know, reviewing the relevant evidence and literature. That's a kind of error.

Bevets: Thus the Pioneer effect supports the essentials of several creationist cosmologies: a centre of mass, expansion of space and recetnt time dilation. ~ Russell Humphreys

Warn people when you post a pdf you farking douchecracker. And go get yourself an actual education.

Bevets: Kome

Bevets 2008-01-20 09:45:40 PM [3340689#37150689]

?

Bevets: You failed to mention that I have designated the quote with 'attribution unknown'. I do not use this quote in my arguments. It is quoted on several other sites and I thought that it should, at least, be acknowledged. Keith was quite prolific. Based on other things he has said, the quote seems consistent with his style. It seems unlikely to me that someone just made this up, however I have not found evidence either way. If you find evidence, please link to it or let me know where I can find it.

Goddamn dude, you quote mine from yourself? Just sad.

The fact that you have it listed as coming from an unknown source is all the more damning for your. You claim to have read all the primary sources from which you get these quotes. If you had, you'd have a source for that quote. You don't. You're a liar. You can't just leave it up there because "it just sounds like something he'd say and I just can't believe some bitter anti-science coward would just make it up."

Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable. ~ Michael Ruse

So you and Michael Ruse are better qualified to judge what Popper thinks than Popper himself? Arrogance, pure and simple.