Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 176 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
#11340 06/16/06 06:05 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I was on topic. If you don't understand how gamma and x-ray information helps determine the composition of the moon then ask.


DA Morgan
.
#11341 06/17/06 12:45 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 60
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 60
Quote:
" In honor of the first manned Moon landing, which took place on July 20, 1969, we?ve added some Nasa imagery to the Google Maps interface..
..if one looks close enough, the answer becomes clear~

#11342 06/17/06 03:10 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
"how am i suppose to quote a book, i read 35 years ago, that was not a well known, even then...."

Anything that is real is verifyable in a library or with a search engine.

In short ... you just made up "facts" off the top of your head.
1) how do you look up a book who's title and arthur are unknown.

2) not all books have been put on the net.

3) your ignorance is extremely showing. everyone that knows anything about it, knows that it was not universally accepted at first.

4) before you made such stupid insults, you should at least learn to spell. "verifyable" does not have a y. it has an i there.

5) why should i make up a fact that is well known. how can i.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#11343 06/17/06 03:48 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer asks:
"1) how do you look up a book who's title and arthur are unknown."

I don't know. How do you quote a book WHOSE title a and AUTHOR are unknown?

dehammer states:
"2) not all books have been put on the net."

By looking for posts that reference the book. Or, if there is any truth to the notion, other publications that confirm the validity of the known source.

dehammer writes:
"3) your ignorance is extremely showing. everyone that knows anything about it, knows that it was not universally accepted at first."

Sentence are supposed to have a subject. "It was not" ... what is the "IT" to which you refer? If you are refering to Einstein ... there is a light year's separation between "not accepted" and anyone calling Einstein an "air head." Unless you can figure out how to purge these threads people are more than capable to going back and reading what you wrote. Integrity might lead some to acknowledge they were running off at the keyboard: Not you of course.

dehammer asks:
"5) why should i make up a fact that is well known. how can i."

Your invented "fact" is not well known ... it is unknown. If it is well known then provide a reference to support it.


DA Morgan
#11344 06/17/06 09:04 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
the term air head is the current version of idiot, and means the same thin. those at the time that said that, since he could not do simple math, he had to be an idiot.

perhaps the common claims that he was too intelligent to understand simple math (as i understand it, he tried to understand it in more complicated math) is just more folklore, such as Edison not being able to tie his shoes. not being there, all i know is that this is one of the stories i have heard since i was in elementary math. perhaps only in certain areas of the world do they teach school children that many of the great leaders of many endeavors had flaws. or perhaps you believe that they did not have any flaws. many ppl of the time saw these flaws as indications of low intelligence. this was the case with Einstein. he did preserver and many are not now willing to accept that he had any flaws.

so in one way you are correct. they did not use the term air head with him. it had not yet been invented. but the term does mean that idiot.

as to the subject of the sentence, if the subject of an argument is known, its normally assumed by normally intelligent ppl that the sentences in the argument are about that subject. since you do appear to have a problem with keeping track of the subject, ill try to reduce my standards enough to suit you.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#11345 06/17/06 08:29 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"the term air head is the current version of idiot"

Waffle, duck, bob, weave all you want. Use whatever definition you wish.

Find a single reference to the statement you made claiming Einstein was viewed by his contemporaries as an air head.

You wrote it.
I've challenged it.
Demonstrate some integrity.

What you've quoted is an urban myth. It is not different from the alligator in the New York city sewer system or George Washington cutting down his father's cherry tree.

It is pure unadultered nonsense and you should acknowledge that you just made it up. You won't, of course, but you should.


DA Morgan
#11346 06/17/06 10:58 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
esin:

Very nice pics. I looked hard and did not see what you must have seen if what you saw relates to this topic.

The main dificulty that I have had on this Forum is that not all members deal specifically with the proposition at hand but want to change the point of the discussion to some thing they prefer to discuss or simply crush the thought expressed.
In my world a response would be ingnored totally if it did not follow the confines of the issue under discussion. To do otherwise provokes a lot of random "responses" that tend to make the original topic something it was never intended to be.One sure way to upset an expert witness (not all of them) is to ask about a minor point of his specialty that you have researched in earnest and already know that there is no known answer, The blow hard will jump in with an effort to "make it clear to everybody" that he knows all- then you have the opportunity to show he does not and if he is wrong there he may be wrong everywhere.

I do not give a whit whether the Moon is hollow. I never brought up the "hollow earth" conjecture.
To me, any one that reads this discussion sequence will have a good example of what I mean about the loose approach taken to topics and get some idea of the experts at work stuff.

jjw

#11347 06/18/06 06:05 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
"the term air head is the current version of idiot"

Waffle, duck, bob, weave all you want. Use whatever definition you wish.

Find a single reference to the statement you made claiming Einstein was viewed by his contemporaries as an air head.

You wrote it.
I've challenged it.
Demonstrate some integrity.

What you've quoted is an urban myth. It is not different from the alligator in the New York city sewer system or George Washington cutting down his father's cherry tree.

It is pure unadultered nonsense and you should acknowledge that you just made it up. You won't, of course, but you should.
which is it, something i made up or an urban myth. it cant be both.


I dont need to find a quote from them to show it to you. human nature has not changed that much since Einstein brought out his theory. just look at the things said here and youll know what ppl said about him and his theory. im sure there was a DA there that said the same things about him as you have said about other that disagreed with you. In other words, the da of that time called him the then current slang equivalant of airhead.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#11348 06/18/06 12:25 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 60
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 60
jjw:

My condolances for your loss, good Sir.. On topic, then, I would, also, consider this thread for its content, replete with, yet, another run on DA vs de waste of cyberspace, to be a not quite so humorous diversion... Please, therefore, take a moment to look 'closer' into the link for what was intended to be taken as is illustrated herein~

#11349 06/20/06 04:34 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Enough of this bickering! No matter where the term "air head" was used to start with, it is very pointless and juvenile to waste the forum's time and space slanging insults back and forth.

We will not refer to others with term of disparagement. If you cannot respect your colleagues, don't post your opinions here. I will not see this forum used for the exchange of slander and libel. It's too precious a place to lose to a lawsuit for either. Mind your manners and cut the insults out or the forum you lose may be your own.

Amaranth
Moderator

#11350 06/21/06 01:02 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Au contraire Rose.

We have a couple of trolls here who ignore science, do no research to confirm what they write, repeat urban myths as gospel, make up facts that are convenient, and most importantly refuse to acknowledge the fact that they have been caught dissembling.

If you want to have a serious science site as opposed to a playground for the mentally challenged then you should be encouraging two things.

1. The posting of supporting references.
2. The acknowledgement of dissembling when exposed.


DA Morgan
#11351 06/21/06 11:51 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
since you refuse to accept that scientist have the same problems that is known to plague all human nature, i will follow Rose's instructions and cease to continue to try to instruct you on reality.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#11352 06/21/06 04:38 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
On June 13th you wrote and I quote exactly:

"how about Einstein. theory of relativity was considered to be the work of a brainless idiot at one point."

I challenged you on this and you are now, 8 days later, going to hide behind a woman's petticoats while claiming you have used 8 days trying to instruct me on reality.

ROFL!


DA Morgan
#11353 06/21/06 10:12 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Esin:

As I said, nice pics. I could also have said very nice link. I went back and it looks the same.

As to my fried, thank you.
jjw

#11354 06/22/06 01:18 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
On June 13th you wrote and I quote exactly:

"how about Einstein. theory of relativity was considered to be the work of a brainless idiot at one point."

I challenged you on this and you are now, 8 days later, going to hide behind a woman's petticoats while claiming you have used 8 days trying to instruct me on reality.

ROFL!
im not hiding behind a womans petticoat, im folloing a moderators decision.

im sure you will always believe that scientist are saints and will recongize the truth of a new theory, despite it destroying a widely accepted, and well cherished personal theory, at first glance, even when it is released by a relatively unknown teacher. since you refuse to believe otherwise, ill leave you in your fantasy world.

the moderator has spoken and i shall listen to her instructions.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#11355 07/16/06 07:47 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
"1) how do you look up a book who's title and arthur are unknown."

ask a librarian. really. we are trained purveyors of information common and obscure. given you know the approximate time of publication, and subject matter, the librarian bag of tricks, not in any way associated with 'magic bags' mind you, has a couple of ways of finding the title and author you seek.

and for those giving you a hard time about provenance, they should have known to send you to the nearest reference desk.

#11356 07/18/06 12:21 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Infoweasel wrote:
"ask a librarian."

Well what do you expect to accomplish by being reasonable and asking people to do real work?

The nerve of some people.


DA Morgan
#11357 08/30/06 10:14 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 5
B
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw004:
?Is our Moon hollow??

I returned to this topic in the interest of keeping open an area of discussion that may seem ridiculous at first blush. There are some that have given some background on why this topic is still discussed.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/8827/moonfacts.html

Not a noteworthy scientific source but he covers the subject with a sampling of the data that keeps the speculation alive.

Is there some overwhelming scientific conclusion that absolutely eliminates the prospect that the Moon could be hollow? I know that density and Mass will be considered but that leaves open the question of whether the Mass is the product of the method and not the reality. Any way, I am simply trying to entice thoughts. Also note that magnetic field comparisons may not be helpful because the Moon is not rotating and we find here on Earth the easiest way to create a magnetic field is by rotating stuff. Pick it apart.
jjw


People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools!!
#11358 08/30/06 10:18 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 5
B
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 5
It might not be commonly known, however the moon in fact rotates once a month!! Good old relativity raises it's head again.


People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools!!
#11359 08/30/06 11:41 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Actually it rotates once per sidereal period which is precisely 27 days 7 hours and 43.2 minutes. Shorter than any calendar month.

The synodic period is, the time it takes the moon to reappear at the same point in the sky is 29 days 12 hours and 44.0 minutes. Longer than any February and shorter than any other calendar month.

But you were reasonably close.


DA Morgan
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5