Really ? And what part of the 'refutation' addresses the facts ? I'd like to see it. Nothing on that thread deals with Dr Jones's article in any detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Printable View
Really ? And what part of the 'refutation' addresses the facts ? I'd like to see it. Nothing on that thread deals with Dr Jones's article in any detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
I put it down to brain overload. All those qualifications (???) - Ph D, D I C, M Sc (x2), B Sc. The poor guy has obviously burnt out most of his brain synapses and in the process taken his eye off the ball (or should that be globe?).
It's simple, the entire universe is revolving around the Earth from our perspective, in the same way that the Earth is revolving on its axis from the perspective of the rest of the universe. There's nothing so mind-blowing about this that you suddenly need to create a web site to include drivel about Earth being the centre of the universe. Unless of course there's money to be made.....
Discover for yourself the kinematics involved in an Earth-centric cosmos, where we are the centre of both God's attention and affection. Special price of $14 (US) or £7 (UK).
He's trying to make a fast buck by revealing some 'amazing truth' he alone has discovered. What next, Elvis returns and proves the Earth is actually flat?
Utter tosh.
You must be right. We don't want to overload our brains, do we ? We don't want to check what he actually wrote.
Great !! It's laughable.
Actually 'making a buck' didn't come in to it. The author of that article provided it free of charge and is still providing it free of charge. How does that suit you ? And 9 years later no reply has been given to it. Makes you think, right ? But hey, we don't want to overload our brains, do we ? Over to you Mr Nasa.
Speaking of making a buck on publications, how about these wonderful publications -
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/ic/ic2.htm
Don't you just love fair and reasonable criticism of science fiction ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillwalker
Well actually I'm managing to cope at the moment. If I come over all dizzy I can always go for a lie down.....Quote:
You must be right. We don't want to overload our brains, do we ?
Anyway, what I balk at is the religious under-current this so-called Oxford graduate inserts into his thesis - that we must live in a geo-centric universe because his letter-by-letter belief in a book made up of a mish-mash of ancient texts suggested it was so, and now it is his mission to go and prove it.
Belief in God hardly requires a belief in this planet being the centre of any universe. But Dr. Jones thinks otherwise.
He begins by advertising his wide repertoire of credentials - presumably in order to lend weight to his postulations and attract anyone gullible enough to accept his quackery, then he throws in a bit of religious gobble-de-gook, and finally proceeds to turn scientific evidence on its head so that it fits in with his little view of how the world really works.
He is harmless, so I say we should let him enjoy his moment of glory. It doesn't mean he should be taken seriously.
H
Have you actually read the same article that we have? It's a precise, eloquent and methodical answer to this nitwit's pseudo-science. What part of it DOESN'T deal with his article?Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
And M, I'd be very keen to understand your definition of the word 'fact'. I suspect it is rather different from my definition of the term, and indeed the definition of the vast majority of the human race.
An Indonesian baby is hooked on nicotine because his mother feels she is powerless to deny him his habit. He supposedly smokes 40 a day.
Unbelievable....Smoking at the age of two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillwalker
He'd have a lot more competition with all of his imitators. It has been estimated that, if their number continues to grow exponentially, by the next century one third of the Earth's male population will be made up of Elvis Presley impersonators.
Does it get any more depressing? The kid is two and smokes like he's been at it for years. I am speechless. How I wish this was a fake story.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Hillwalker,
Let's not bring religion or irreligion in to this discussion. Let's stay with the actual subject of the Oxford academic's post. Care to do that ?
You will notice (if you are not too dizzy) that the name of his article is - (and I quote) -
'Geostationary Satellites in a Geocentric Universe'.
Now, I don't want to go too fast for you. But this subject is not a religious one, is it ? Nor is it irreligious. Why not read it ?
Do you know what a geostationary satellite is ??? You do ? Or are you already too dizzy ? Great, let's proceed to the next point. If you read the document you will see it was not written by a fool but by a man qualified to talk about satellites and about the mathematics of gravity. Are you feeling dizzy yet ?
Would you care to tell us how, if the Earth is revolving on its axis, satellites maintain close location to stations on Earth which are monitoring them, and do so over a period of time ?
But don't bother. You already deserve another large shot of NASA hyperbole.
LOL :nopity:
http://www.geocentricperspective.com/geosat.pdf
Lokasenna,Quote:
Originally Posted by hillwalker
Kindly explain to us how the Earth can be rotating on its axis at a speed of close to 1,000 mph at the equator if satellites are fixed in to position with their equatorial base over any real period of time ? But, better still, why not take off your cowboy boots and study the article instead of talking nonsense as if it has been answered ? It has not.
You've been 'NASAfied' and it shows :nopity:
Try reading something which challenges your fairy stories and answering the points it makes on matters of scientific fact. Thank You. We've been here before and you abandoned ship. ''Hello Houston, I think we have a problem''.
Or, to put it another way, if the Earth is really revolving at around 1,000 mph at the equator, how are these satellites kept in close proximity to their fixed terrestrial bases over any period of time if the forces of gravity are acting upon it (the satellite) during all the time they are there in space ? To do so would require that satellite to be continually kept at the same rotating speed as a rotating Earth. Right ? The slightest deviation from the speed of such a satellite would take it many miles out of contact with its local base on Earth. Faster than Earth would propell it further forward than the Earth's orbit and slower would result in it being behind the alleged Earth orbit. 'Er, hello Houston'..................... And since the satellite is doomed to plunge to Earth by the forces of gravity, how then does it, can it, remain fixed above the tracking station at the same (alleged) speed as a revolving Earth ?
Game set and match !!!!!!
LOL !!!!!!!!!! Don't you just love science fiction ?
http://www.geocentricperspective.com/geosat.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
You obviously have missed the point - this eminent physicist is the one who is dragging religion into the argument - and I am choosing to question his motivation for spreading such spurious mis-information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Yes I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Qualified - according to whom? The nonsense he is spouting would suggest he is no more qualified than an ex-neighbour of mine. A Cambridge graduate - who gained a VQ in Domestic Science from Cambridge College of Technology. Although, on second thoughts, I do her a disservice. Her grasp of science is probably far greater.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
My pleasure. These satellites remain geostationary because, having been positioned in an orbit approximately 22,236 miles above the Earth's surface, they are neither drawn back down by gravity nor carried out into space by centrifugal force. It begs the question -Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
I also wonder why you stoop to making personal jibes against anyone who picks holes in your fatuous arguments. But fret not, my friend, I shall lose no sleep over it.Quote:
Do you know what a geostationary satellite is?
H
Hillwalker,
Can you (finally) address yourself to what the article says about satellites, gravitational forces, and the alleged rotation of the Earth, whether you like the author's religion or not ? The alternative is to ignore what he has provided about satellites, gravity and the alleged rotation of the Earth, isn't it ? Where is the 'spurious misinformation' to which you refer ? Care to show us an example ? Just one ? You can do this, can't you ? Or can you ? No, of course you can't.
You say, and I quote ' The satellites remain 'geostationary' because, having been positioned in an orbit approximately 22,236 miles above the Earth's surface (is that 'approximate or exact' ????) they are neither drawn back down by gravity nor carried out into space by centrifugal force'
WOW !!!
And how is THAT magic trick done ?? Consider the nonsense you have just written. First of all, an orbit of 22,236 miles above the Earth is NOT 'approximate'. Is it ? Only in your head, that is. It's very, very precise, isn't it ? It's not approximate at all. Is it ? Any other orbit would not work, would it ? Any other orbit busts the mission. Why then do you call it 'approximate' ? Or do you even know what 'precise' means ? Shall I give a dictionary definition of 'precise' ? You've been NASIfied, haven't you ?
So, here is a satellite, according to you, not only amazingly locked in position to its ground station at a precise and permanent speed that is exactly and precisely equivalent to the supposed rotation of a pinpoint location on the Earth itself but also locked in to its own speed so precisely it never stops being overhead of that land station on Earth !!!!!!!!!!! Neither less nor more. How bizzare is that ? The satellite is so precisely linked to that land station it is the equivalent of threading a needle wearing a pair of boxing gloves while wearing dark glasses. And keeping that satellite at PRECISELY the same speed directly overhead for the entire duration of its life. Despite the inevitable pull of gravity on it while will end when it crashes in the ocean. You have heard of gravity, haven't you ? Neither less nor more lol !!! Who but the insane would believe such utter and complete NONSENSE !!!
How can a satellite even approach that single, unique, position overhead at a speed so precise when it arrives it is then fixed in relation to the ground station and is precisely fixed to rotate at that same speed when it finally arrives there ??
The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum !
Tell us how this stupendous feat of NASAfiction is achieved ? If at all. We would like a description of how it's done. A more crazy scenario cannot be invented, even by a cathode ray tube hustler from some fun factory. But you believe it all the same. Don't you ? You've seen it on TV. Right ?
You will 'lose no sleep over it'. You are so darned right. Keep snoring !
Over to you Mr Nasa.
:nopity:
Whether the sun revolves around us...or we are spinning, the results are the same. Does it matter which is the case?
Are you kidding me? The geocentic/heliocentric debate found its way into here?!
Yes it did...and I wish that it hadn't...
Quote:
Gary Coleman, the child star of the TV sitcom Diff'rent Strokes, died Friday after suffering an intercranial hemorrhage. He was 42.
Utah Valley Regional Medical Center spokeswoman Janet Frank says life support was terminated and Coleman died at 12:05 p.m.
Coleman was hospitalized Wednesday after falling and suffering a head injury at his home south of Salt Lake City, according to family members.
For a while, it seemed that Gary Coleman's cherubic face was everywhere, from TV to T-shirts to lunchboxes.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/...n_N.htm?csp=hf
You said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Once in place a satellite requires no motive power to maintain its speed relative to the Earth rotating below it - gravitational and centrifugal forces see to that. There is actually no magic involved - just a rocket which carries it up from the ground to the sky and programmed to release it at precisely the correct altitude. They can do things like that nowadays you will probably be amazed to learn.
The "magic" altitude of 22,236 miles (35,786 km)is precisely the point at which a satellite's orbital period matches, or is an integral part of, the period at which the Earth rotates: once every sidereal day (23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds). In that case, the satellite is said to be geosynchronous.
When its orbit also lies entirely over the equator, the satellite remains stationary relative to the Earth's surface – and so it is said to be geostationary.
At the correct height gravity and centrifugal force balance out - hence natural forces (as per Newton's Laws of Gravity and Keppler's Third Law) keep the satellite in orbit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
I do so enjoy these civilised discussions - it really brings out the best (and worst) in people. It's like a game of tennis, except you keep running off with the ball because you want everyone to play by your rules.
Deuce I think, old chap.
H
With all the respect in the world for Gary....Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
"Watchu' talkin' 'bout, Willis?"
He'll live in our hearts forever...
Another great loss....
Kids Say the Darnest Things' Art Linkletter dies at 97...
I hate death... and theres just too many people dying lately. :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Apologies everyone for allowing this silly thread to flourish - I have only just discovered that it is a reincarnation of another similar thread posted last month (?) which was eventually dumped by the mods.Quote:
Yes it did...and I wish that it hadn't...
You are right - this is a News thread and I shall allow our learned friend to thrive in isolation with his own belief system without interfering any further.
Such a shame he feels the need to indoctrinate everybody with such twaddle.
Peace upon you all..... and may the force be with us all (!?!).
H
Thank you Daniel Benoit for your brilliant refutation of the fact that the Earth stands still in space and is not rotating or revolving. It is easily the best analysis of that heresy posted by the Oxford academic.
'Geostationary Satellites in a Geocentric Universe' (2002)
http://www.geocentricperspective.com/geosat.pdf
The marvellous criticism of his calculations and observations which you have made here on this thread deserves a Nobel Prize. :nopity: and should be applauded by your brilliant colleagues.
In the meantime (and not wishing to deflate your ego) -
NASA are no longer answering public questions about the alleged ''rotation of the Earth on its axis each day''. On the NASA website under the subject of 'The Speed of the Turning of the Earth' is the following comment near the bottom of the page -
'''Questions on this topic are no longer responded to by the "Ask an Astrophysicist" service''
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/970401c.html
How unfortunate !!! 'Hello Houston, I think you have a problem' !!!!
LOL !!!!!!!!!!! :flare:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
I think someone has been watching too much of Pixar's Up...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-balloons.html
And I have just read that, in preparation for the FIFA World Cup, the South African football team (the host nation to those of you out of the loop) have appointed a choreographer to help the team perfect their reactions when (or possibly if) they score a goal!
Some players from other nations already perform standing somersaults in celebration, or some may mime a particular activity like nursing a baby or playing a fiddle, and some do a little jig.
Presumably the final team selection for the South African squad will depend on a player's dance technique rather than his footballing skills.....
http://www.online-literature.com/for...pictureid=6971http://www.online-literature.com/for...pictureid=6971http://www.online-literature.com/for...pictureid=6971
Galileo, Copernicus and NASA are my favourites for the next world cup. They can spin and rotate the ball with amazing skill and there will always be fools enough to follow them - even when the whistle blows because they are faking it.
LOL :nopity:
R.I.P. Gary Coleman
R.I.P.
Art Linkletter
RIP
Ray Alan - ventriloguist famous over here for Titch + Quackers, and the hilariously stiff-upper-lipped Lord Charles (catch-phrase 'silly arse').
Dennis Hopper died today. The cinema has lost one of its greats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHGLBy2CdjI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAixFYnDh4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH8FEZvaiAI
Okay, people...stop dying here....
Wow - that has to be this week's greatest loss. The man was an absolute legend as actor and director. He contributed to so many iconic films - and never failed to inject a certain extra something to each role he took on.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Such a loss.....
Bafana Bafana never score enough goals to make the choreographer necessary, lol! It's a total waste of money!Quote:
Originally Posted by hillwalker
On that note...I read a article about the ridiculous demands all the soccer teams have...I'd post the link here, but the article was in Afrikaans and I couldn't find an English one...but it's safe to say they are a bunch of DIVAS!!!
Music for Dogs, to be held outside the Sydney Opera House, is billed as "an inter-species social gathering on a scale never seen before in Australia".
The bizarre recital in June will be largely inaudible to the human ear.
The couple said they have experience making music for at least one dog - their rat terrier, Lollabelle.
"She likes things with a lot of smoothness but with beats in them,'' Ms Anderson told the Sydney Morning Herald.
She said the inspiration for the performance at the Vivid Live festival in Sydney came while she was backstage at an event and thought: "Wouldn't it be great, if you were playing a concert and you look out and you see all dogs?"
The show, created by Ms Anderson, will last for 20 minutes as she says "dogs don't have a giant concentration span".
The sounds will be played at high frequency like a dog whistle, setting dogs' ears twitching but barely audible to their owners.
It is billed in the festival programme as "an absolute must for any dog and their two-legged friends".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...c/10181186.stm
Those Aussies are a bit peculiar.
Aussies???Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
What about Reed himself?
Women on the dole are being offered a £1,150 fashion and beauty makeover and membership to a dating agency to help them find a wealthy husband.
Dutch jobseekers are being given a new hairstyle and outfit and tips from a lifecoach on how to attract a new partner.
The scheme has been slammed by local politicians who criticised the deal as unethical and a waste of taxpayers money.
Under the scheme, the women will be given instructions on how to present themselves socially and offered a place on an exclusive matchmaking website called Mens & Relatie (People and Relationships).
They will have professional photographs of their new image to boost their dating profile.
The scheme is being offered by three councils in Friesland, in the north of the Netherlands.
They estimate that if 70 women find a solvent husband, the council can save £330,000 on welfare payments.
They also believe that finding love will help get the unemployed off state benefits by improving their confidence and ambitions.
So far, just one candidate has signed up for the voluntary scheme, which is aimed at women but open to men as well.
Managing director of dating website Mens & Relatie, Radboud Visser, said that people in relationships have 'better health, more happiness, make more money and live longer lives'.
He told The Times that the councils would spend 650 euros registering an unemployed woman on their site - the average they pay them in jobseekers allowance each month.
More than 600 people in the area are eligible for the scheme but, following some adverse publicity in local media, one council has put the plan on hold.
In 2008, jobless Dutch in Maastricht were given a 10-week course of 'regression therapy' at a cost of £720 in the hope that coming to terms with their past lives would help them find a job.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...t-husband.html
I can honestly say this makes me want to slap them all in the face, take their money and burn it before their eyes, give the unemployed people what they NEED. And maybe help them learn that they shouldnt be so stupid as to think they are going to get any lasting love that way. That made me sick, idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Married men may have longer lives because their wives nag them to see their doctor, research shows. And both men and women in committed relationships are more likely to do regular exercise, adding years to their life, researchers say.
The study, to be presented at the Royal Economic Society’s annual conference at the University of Surrey, sheds new light on the benefits of marriage.
Social scientists found married men were 6 per cent more likely to go to the doctor than single men who had no one to tell them they needed a check-up.
They found women were 34 per cent more likely to keep fit through regular exercise in a relationship, and men were 20 per cent more likely to go out for a run once a week if they were married.
But women were just as likely to go to the doctor if they were single or married. Researchers argue that the findings suggest health authorities should target campaigns towards single men aiming at getting them to visit their GP.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0r9F5pk2Y
At first I thought this read Soviet husband.. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
That's probably because they're both so bored with their lives, jogging and exercise eats up some of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Burger eaters are being warned not to bite off more than they can chew Fast food restaurants in Taiwan have been urged to drop big burgers from their menus amid a growing number of jaw injuries, according to a report.
Patients have had difficulty opening their mouths after munching giant burgers, said Professor Hsu Ming-lung, of National Yang-Ming University.
Problems can arise when tucking into burgers higher than 8cm (3ins), Hsu was quoted as saying by the China Post.
He called on fast food restaurants to limit the size of their hamburgers to prevent the public from quite literally biting off more than they can chew.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...c/10559578.stm
Clearly, I should be suing McDonald's for my jaw condition instead of blaming my horrible WASP genes.