What becomes of old 'friends'..

[cjameshuff]

Solon was back for a while on Cosmoquest, but was suspended after a few pages.

I must admit, I wish they'd allow Solon a little more leeway, just to see if he will ever drop a hint about *why* he believes scientists are covering up the "fact" that you can't see light in space.

Try to find his first posts there. It was to do about some weird guru type putting the world of astronomy upside down with his new insights or something. IIRC stars not being real or similarly weird stuff. He's already used up a lot of leeway, btw.

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?113525-A-Revolution-in-Astronomy
There, he became a bit obsessed with the idea that parallax measurements were for some reason wildly wrong, to the point that stars were actually objects within the solar system and galaxies were other solar systems. Much like with his more recent threads, he was arbitrarily unwilling to accept the evidence given, questioning the measuring techniques without bothering to learn about them.

Shortly before that, his very first thread was about an idea of his that the atmosphere made stars visible by diffusing the light, they otherwise being too small to see. It seems he never gave up on that idea, and has since been adding as many twists and turns as he can.

[ChrLz]

And it's a harsh world, that one of reality we live in...

Nice hand-wave; worthy of every CT-ist

Do you think the world of science, physics, photogrammetry, space environments etc and *real* investigation/research of those is easy/simple?  And I'm talking like a CT?  Thanks.

.. who ever bleated, "The Government always lies - therefore The Official Story is a lie!"

I find it a little strange that my comment about the harshness of reality should be compared to a very obvious logical fallacy.

In the context of this discussion, bullshit.

Thanks again.   

The world of this forum is precisely defined by the words written here.

Yes, the *actual* quoted words.  Not some handwaved generalisation.  Gillian was good enough to give a fine example...

It cannot be harsh unless someone makes a decision to type harsh words and click "post".  These are conscious actions for which individuals are 100% responsible.

And if they (including I) do post harshly, imo it should be dealt with *at the time* and *in context* or if later the actual incident/s should be quoted and discussed rather than admonishing an un-named poster or group of posters without even an example.

This world is what we make of it.

I'd argue that the world is also what you perceive it to be, and if your judgement is skewed by a few wayward or 'harsh' posts on a public forum where any Tom, Dick or Harriet is able to post relatively freely, then I think there's a problem.

[/harsh words]

There's a certain irony in that...

Gillian, I fully agree that some of those comments were inappropriate (I'm glad that they weren't mine..).  But I would note at that time we were suffering from a number of sockpuppet attacks, and I reckon I've been caught at least once wrongly suspecting a poster of that behaviour (no-one else?).  Again, I would suggest that if anyone sees an inappropriate post, then *at that time* post something to counter it or notify LO.

[gillianren]

I would say that contacting LO is better than being rude in-thread.  In this case, I do not have the faintest idea how anyone could have taken the person as Doc Socks, given that it was made explicit that the person knew by default that it was bogus but did not himself have the ability to show that it was bogus.  I mean, really; when did Doc Socks ever admit that he didn't know anything?

[Noldi400]

Kind of like when musicians think they play better when toked up.  They really just think they're playing better.

God, yeah. I really like the comedy musings of Bill Hicks, but that's the most irritating claim he makes.

I'm not familiar with Bill Hicks; that was just a comment based on my own experience observations.

[darren r]

I'm not familiar with Bill Hicks; that was just a comment based on my own experience observations.

His work is worth seeking out. His routine about the first Gulf War is hilarious. Though beware, he does believe that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy. Or 'believed', anyway. He sadly died in 1994. 

[twik]

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?113525-A-Revolution-in-Astronomy
There, he became a bit obsessed with the idea that parallax measurements were for some reason wildly wrong, to the point that stars were actually objects within the solar system and galaxies were other solar systems. Much like with his more recent threads, he was arbitrarily unwilling to accept the evidence given, questioning the measuring techniques without bothering to learn about them.

Shortly before that, his very first thread was about an idea of his that the atmosphere made stars visible by diffusing the light, they otherwise being too small to see. It seems he never gave up on that idea, and has since been adding as many twists and turns as he can.

Ah, I think this provides a clue. I don't think he's a "Biblical/Genesis" Young Earth Creationist, I think he's pushing the Vedic interpretation of cosmology. Therefore, I suspect that his "you can't see light in space" theory is aimed at supporting his proposition that the universe is much smaller than we suppose, in accordance with Vedic descriptions. If light from outside Earth's atmosphere acts all weird and stuff, how can we trust our measurements that things are as far away as we think?

[cjameshuff]

Ah, I think this provides a clue. I don't think he's a "Biblical/Genesis" Young Earth Creationist, I think he's pushing the Vedic interpretation of cosmology. Therefore, I suspect that his "you can't see light in space" theory is aimed at supporting his proposition that the universe is much smaller than we suppose, in accordance with Vedic descriptions. If light from outside Earth's atmosphere acts all weird and stuff, how can we trust our measurements that things are as far away as we think?

I think that was what the "revolution" guy was aiming at. Solon seems to just latch onto weird ideas that catch his fancy. There was another thread where he was trying to suggest...well, I'll quote:

"...the possibility of the Martian surface features (and by inference, other planetary surfaces) being the result of processes such as heavy ion bombardment, ion acoustic waves, aggregation, dis-aggregation, shattering by pulsed electric fields, and, based on the known electrical and mechanical properties of particular rocks, processes that rely on the piezoelectric (and obverse), dielectric, resistance, reluctance, etc. variables. This scenario would be based on the concept of CMEs at magnitudes far greater than we presently experience, particularly with respect to the iron ion density."

All this because Mars has some iron in its crust. And CME's carry oxygen!

He was of course "just asking"...

[raven]

Man, it's like one of the bad episodes of Star Trek.

[smartcooky]

Man, it's like one of the bad episodes of Star Trek.

Yep, those ion storms sure play havoc with your basic tri-corders, the communicators and the Heisenberg compensators on the transporter platform!

[Andromeda]

Ah, I think this provides a clue. I don't think he's a "Biblical/Genesis" Young Earth Creationist, I think he's pushing the Vedic interpretation of cosmology. Therefore, I suspect that his "you can't see light in space" theory is aimed at supporting his proposition that the universe is much smaller than we suppose, in accordance with Vedic descriptions. If light from outside Earth's atmosphere acts all weird and stuff, how can we trust our measurements that things are as far away as we think?

I think that was what the "revolution" guy was aiming at. Solon seems to just latch onto weird ideas that catch his fancy. There was another thread where he was trying to suggest...well, I'll quote:

"...the possibility of the Martian surface features (and by inference, other planetary surfaces) being the result of processes such as heavy ion bombardment, ion acoustic waves, aggregation, dis-aggregation, shattering by pulsed electric fields, and, based on the known electrical and mechanical properties of particular rocks, processes that rely on the piezoelectric (and obverse), dielectric, resistance, reluctance, etc. variables. This scenario would be based on the concept of CMEs at magnitudes far greater than we presently experience, particularly with respect to the iron ion density."

All this because Mars has some iron in its crust. And CME's carry oxygen!

He was of course "just asking"...

Now I have a headache.

[ka9q]

Man, it's like one of the bad episodes of Star Trek.

Too bad we can't put them into the passageway between the universes and then phaser the portal into the passageway...

(That was a bad episode)

[twik]

Wow. That's ... a lot of technobabble. (Yes, I know individually the terms are real, I just suspect they are being thrown in because they sounds "techy".)

[raven]

Yep, those ion storms sure play havoc with your basic tri-corders, the communicators and the Heisenberg compensators on the transporter platform!

I have a certain fondness for the Heisenberg compensator.  It tells me the creators knew what at least one of the laws of physics were that they were breaking when they broke them.

[Chew]

http://www.google.com/search?q=technobabble+generator

[Humots]

I've been following IDW on his REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! thread at GodlikeProductions, and in the next to last post on

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2265862/pg144

he said something so ignorant, even for him, that it surprised me:

E = M C^2 Proved bunk:


Closely examine that equation. If it is an algebraic equation as it's form suggests, then the algebraic solution for C produces C = SQRT(E/M) This translates basically into "if you transform matter into energy C has to increase or the equation produces an inequality".In an algebraic form, C cannot be a constant unless both E and M are constant and never vary

The thread has continued for nine more pages so far, and no one has called him on this.

I am strongly tempted to register at GodLike and post something like the following:

"C = PI D (circumference of a circle = PI times the diameter of the circle) Proved bunk:

Closely examine that equation. If it is an algebraic equation as its form suggests, then the algebraic solution for PI produces PI = C / D.  This translates basically into "If you change the circumference of a circle, PI has to change or the equation produces an inequality".  In an algebraic form, PI cannot be a constant unless both C  and D are constant and never vary."

Or possibly:

"a = GM/R^2 (the gravitational acceleration for mass M at distance R is equal to the product of the Gravitational Constant G times the mass M divided by the square of the distance R) Proved bunk:

Closely examine that equation.  If it is an algebraic equation as it form suggests, then the algebraic solution for G produces G= a * R^2/M. This translates basically into "If you change the distance from mass M, the Gravitational Constant G has to change or the equation produces an inequality".  In an algebraic form, G cannot be a constant unless a, R and M are constant and never vary."

I believe this is the most ridiculous thing IDW has ever said, and that it is such a perfect example of his general cluelessness that it needs exposure.

I'm sure that IDW will claim that his post was edited, state that I am a NASA shill, make some obscene, antisemitic, homophobic remark, explain how
he really didn't say what he said, or ignore me.

But, is it a good idea for me to register and post at Godlike?  I'm serious, I've heard warnings about being sure my antivirals and anti-malware code is up to date before going there.

Also, I don't want to leave my email address and get spammed.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.