The Asteroid 2007 WD5 will not impact Mars.

[Dexter Sinister]

You forgot charge.You argue from authority more than science.

No, I did not forget charge. Charge doesn't enter into such orbital calculations. I'm arguing from authority only if you think it's a logical fallacy to argue on the basis of a theory that's been well understood and exhaustively tested for centuries and found to be, within its limits, which are also well understood, an excellent description of how nature behaves. If that's what you think an argument from authority is, you can dismiss any reference to anything, no matter how thoroughly understood and well attested it is, as a logical fallacy.

Show me the equations, show me where charge enters into orbital calculations of the type we're talking about, show me the proof that a body in orbit can't make a complete circuit in less time than the body it's orbiting takes to rotate, then explain how Mars' inner satellite and the millions of little satellites present in Saturn's inner rings manage to do it, bearing in mind that Newtonian mechanics already explains it perfectly satisfactorily.

 

[darkbeaver]

No, I did not forget charge. Charge doesn't enter into such orbital calculations. I'm arguing from authority only if you think it's a logical fallacy to argue on the basis of a theory that's been well understood and exhaustively tested for centuries and found to be, within its limits, which are also well understood, an excellent description of how nature behaves. If that's what you think an argument from authority is, you can dismiss any reference to anything, no matter how thoroughly understood and well attested it is, as a logical fallacy.

Show me the equations, show me where charge enters into orbital calculations of the type we're talking about, show me the proof that a body in orbit can't make a complete circuit in less time than the body it's orbiting takes to rotate, then explain how Mars' inner satellite and the millions of little satellites present in Saturn's inner rings manage to do it, bearing in mind that Newtonian mechanics already explains it perfectly satisfactorily.

The authority you're arguing from is not proven it's theroy, as in theroy of relativity. No proven solar system model exists. For instance there is no proven model for the origin of the planets. Where they captured or are they native.
In any case I believe in the catastrophic nature of our solar system and not the accepted model. Newtonian mechanics actually don't explain very much about the solar system at all, relatively speaking
http://www.holoscience.com/
There have a look at some different thinking about the basics of the universe, it's about the electric universe, with your background you should find it interesting.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Didn't find any equations Beave, just a lot of non-specific discussions of principles and mockery of orthodox science. Show me the equations of motion in the Electric Universe equivalent to Newton's and Einstein's in the gravitating universe.

 

[darkbeaver]

Didn't find any equations Beave, just a lot of non-specific discussions of principles and mockery of orthodox science. Show me the equations of motion in the Electric Universe equivalent to Newton's and Einstein's in the gravitating universe.

Well Dex I was just trying to discuss alternatives to the orthdoxy presently in vogue in the official body of science. This problem does exist Dex, I have not invented it. I thought the electric universe was guite a splendid idea and perhaps it could yield better understanding of the history of this solar system. There are many scientist who do have the courage to challenge convention, in fact that is preciesely what drives invention and makes science progress. I may find you some equations if I look arround a bit. We can read that Darwin went through much the same type of criticisim but eventually it became the accepted orthodoxy.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Yeah I know you didn't invent it, in fact I've encountered it before; it's an idea that's been around for quite a long time. My understanding was that it's been pretty thoroughly discredited, essentially because its proponents couldn't come up with any mathematics that works as well as Newton's. I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand, maybe they've figured out something recently that I haven't heard of, but I will tell you that the web site you pointed me to has the characteristic features of pseudo-scientific quackery. Railing against the orthodox view, qualitative arguments, no mathematics, vague generalizations, people working outside the mainstream and creating their own journals and conventions because the recognized orthodox ones won't take them seriously, stuff like that. The equations are critical; without the mathematics they don't have a plausible physical theory.

 

[darkbeaver]

Yeah I know you didn't invent it, in fact I've encountered it before; it's an idea that's been around for quite a long time. My understanding was that it's been pretty thoroughly discredited, essentially because its proponents couldn't come up with any mathematics that works as well as Newton's. I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand, maybe they've figured out something recently that I haven't heard of, but I will tell you that the web site you pointed me to has the characteristic features of pseudo-scientific quackery. Railing against the orthodox view, qualitative arguments, no mathematics, vague generalizations, people working outside the mainstream and creating their own journals and conventions because the recognized orthodox ones won't take them seriously, stuff like that. The equations are critical; without the mathematics they don't have a plausible physical theory.

I agree, but I have capacity that I can fill to incorporate the unknown of which there is no end. I like proof as well as the next mechanic, in fact drilling and tapping holes demands it. I know cecause of your affection for science fiction that you also evauluate unorthodox creative scenarios. The willingness to consider the unorthodox is criticle to progress not just in science, but in every aspect of humanity.

 

[darkbeaver]

Titan Has More Oil Than Earth

Space.com
Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:11 EST








Saturn's smoggy moon Titan has hundreds of times more natural gas and other liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, scientists said today.
The hydrocarbons rain from the sky on the miserable moon, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes. This much was known. But now the stuff has been quantified using observations from NASA's Cassini spacecraft.
"Titan is just covered in carbon-bearing material - it's a giant factory of organic chemicals," said Ralph Lorenz, a Cassini radar team member from the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. "This vast carbon inventory is an important window into the geology and climate history of Titan."
At minus 179 degrees Celsius (minus 290 degrees Fahrenheit), Titan would be an awful place to live. Instead of water, liquid hydrocarbons in the form of methane and ethane are present on the moon's surface, and tholins probably make up its dunes. The term "tholins" was coined by Carl Sagan in 1979 to describe the complex organic molecules at the heart of prebiotic chemistry.
Titan has long been viewed as a place that might be somewhat like Earth just before biology got going.
Cassini has mapped about 20 percent of Titan's surface with radar. Several hundred lakes and seas have been observed, with each of several dozen estimated to contain more hydrocarbon liquid than Earth's oil and gas reserves, according to a NASA statement. The dark dunes that run along the equator contain a volume of organics several hundred times larger than Earth's coal reserves.
Proven reserves of natural gas on Earth total 130 billion tons, enough to provide 300 times the amount of energy the entire United States uses annually for residential heating, cooling and lighting, according to the release. Dozens of Titan's lakes individually have the equivalent of at least this much energy in the form of methane and ethane.
"This global estimate is based mostly on views of the lakes in the northern polar regions," Lorenz said. "We have assumed the south might be similar, but we really don't yet know how much liquid is there."
Cassini's radar has observed the south polar region only once, and only two small lakes were visible.
The findings are detailed in the Jan. 29 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Scientists estimated Titan's lake depth by making some general assumptions based on lakes on Earth. They took the average area and depth of lakes on Earth, taking into account the nearby surroundings, like mountains. On Earth, the lake depth is often 10 times less than the height of nearby terrain.
"We also know that some lakes are more than 10 meters or so deep because they appear literally pitch-black to the radar. If they were shallow we'd see the bottom, and we don't," Lorenz said.
The question of how much liquid is on the surface is an important one because methane is a strong greenhouse gas on Titan as well as on Earth, but there is much more of it on Titan. If all the observed liquid on Titan is methane, it would only last a few million years, because as methane escapes into Titan's atmosphere, it breaks down and escapes into space.
If the methane were to run out, Titan could become much colder. Scientists believe that methane might be supplied to the atmosphere by venting from the interior in cryovolcanic eruptions. If so, the amount of methane, and the temperature on Titan, may have fluctuated dramatically in Titan's past.
"We are carbon-based life, and understanding how far along the chain of complexity towards life that chemistry can go in an environment like Titan will be important in understanding the origins of life throughout the universe," Lorenz said.



I will connect this with Velikovsky anon. DB

​

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I will connect this with Velikovsky anon.

Good luck with that. I don't recall Velikovsky saying anything about Saturn and Titan, he didn't even appear to know the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates in his discussion of the stuff that fell out of comet Venus' tail. Where Velikovsky was original he was wrong, and where he was right, he was right for the wrong reasons (like the surface temperature of Venus and the radio emissions from Jupiter), or he wasn't original.

Try reading him a little more critically. Here's just one example of the kind of illegitimate nonsense he engages in. On page 147 of Worlds in Collision (the hardcover first edition from Macmillan, which in fact *did* publish his book, contrary to one of your previous claims, it's sitting on my desk in front of me right now) he writes this in a discussion of Atlantis: "Critias the Younger remembered having been told that the catastrophe which befell Atlantis happened 9,000 years before. There is one zero too many here." So he quite arbitrarily just deletes it, without justification or explanation, to make it 900 years before, which he has to do to make it fit with the chronology he's invented. What the heck, what's a factor of 10 here and there? He's cherry picked myths and legends from all over the world, freely cited those that support his hypothesis and ignored those that don't, and sometimes hammered some of them into shape to fit the case he's trying to make. How can you take that seriously? He's just making things up, denying metaphor and hyperbole, insisting that all the things he's chosen to cite are literal descriptions of actual events. If I'd told him the city I live in is going to the dogs he'd have assumed I meant packs of wild dogs are roaming the streets.

 

[eanassir]

I will connect this with Velikovsky anon. DB

Darkbeaver,​

Was this Velikovsky a prophet of God? Did he bring some message from God? Was he infallible so one may be enthusiastic about him; because the enthusiasm is wrong?​

I did not read about this man before; but when some members here started to mention about him; I read in the Wikipedia some information about him and his books.​

There were many other writers like Jules Verne, H.G. Wells and others who wrote some imaginary novels. Truly these novels are nice, but these writers wrote their novels without scientific proofs. They bear some hints to being verified later on, but not necessarily all their words are correct.
E.g. Jules Verne is more than others in this respect; he wrote about things and later they have been implicated scientifically. But H.G. Wells wrote things strange and cannot be practically applied like the Time Machine, which is not logical and not applicable. His novel about the adventure of a journey to Moon turned to be false and unapplicable.
This one: Velikovsky, wrote novels with deep and extensive imagination; some of them may be reasonable, but most of them are not convincing.​

The miracles of the prophets are extraordinary; they were done by God Almighty, not by the prophet himself. It is not necessarily that a comet should come or a star should burst so that such miracles might be fulfilled or wrought.​

The miracles of the prophets mentioned in the Torah, revealed from God, mentions many miracles which are confirmed by the Glorious Quran:​

• The nine miracles of Moses: the staff, his hand turning white and emitting light, and the rest of miracles – these are right, correct and authentic.

The red see parted and there appeared twelve dry roads on which they crossed to the other side safe, while Pharaoh and his host were drowned – this is true.
The water gushing from the stone in twelve springs as requested by Moses– this is true.​

• The standstill of the sun for Joshua; I don't know; I think it is as if the time appeared to them enough or blessed so that they could accomplish their task in a limited time or something like that; but it might be fabricated; because the present Torah was written by the priest Ezra, son of Siraeh, following their return from the captivity of Babylon.

The Torah [or Hebrew Bible] of Ezra
http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/#TorahofEzra​

• The fire that came from heaven as a miracle for Prophet Elia (or Elijah) – true.

• The miracles of Jesus Christ are true like reviving the dead, curing the congenitally blind, and the leper; and telling them what they eat and what they store in their houses – these are authentic, correct and true. But some others like walking on the water and some others I think fabricated.

• The miracle of Prophet Mohammed is the Glorious Quran only; he was not given any other material miracle. Some miracles mentioned were fabricated; because the Quran says the only miracle is the Quran, and God will not give him any material miracle; because the ancient denied such miracles.

http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/english3.htm#GodOrderedMohammedtoAsk​

eanassir
http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com
http://universeandquran.741.com
http://man-after-death.741.com​

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Was this Velikovsky a prophet of God? Did he bring some message from God? Was he infallible so one may be enthusiastic about him; because the enthusiasm is wrong?

No, he was just an ordinary man, who invested a lot of time and effort into trying to explain some of the Old Testament miracles with what he thought was science and history, without requiring the hand of god. He didn't write novels, he thought he was writing about true things, but he was wrong, and didn't understand the physics and chemistry of what he was writing about or he wouldn't have bothered, he'd have known he was wrong.

The miracles of Jesus Christ are true like reviving the dead, curing the congenitally blind, and the leper; and telling them what they eat and what they store in their houses – these are authentic, correct and true. But some others like walking on the water and some others I think fabricated.

And how do you decide what's true and what's fabricated? Let me guess: if it's in the Quran, or both the Quran and the Bible, it's true, but if it's only in the Bible, not in the Quran, it's a fabrication, right?

The sun standing still for Joshua's not a true story. Fairly elementary calculations show that it's possible in principle for the earth's rotation to stop without anyone noticing it if it takes long enough. About 90 minutes would do it, that would produce a gentle enough deceleration that nobody would notice and the oceans wouldn't be slopping out of their basins in giant tidal waves. But heat considerations destroy the story. The energy of the earth's rotation has to go somewhere, and it would go into heating the planet. It's enough heat to raise the temperature about 100 degrees Celsius. The surface water would have boiled. I think somebody would have noticed that.

 

[eanassir]

And how do you decide what's true and what's fabricated? Let me guess: if it's in the Quran, or both the Quran and the Bible, it's true, but if it's only in the Bible, not in the Quran, it's a fabrication, right?

I believe in the Torah revealed to Moses and the Gospel revealed to Jesus, just as do I believe in the Quran revealed to Mohammed, in addition to that revealed to Abraham and the Books revealed to the prophets, and the Psalms revealed to David.

 

[darkbeaver]

For the last two hundred years of Enlightenment we have been rewriting history
so that the cry of freedom is from earthly oppressors. No wonder the world
has gone wrong and the astrophysicists today cannot come to terms with the
Taurid torus. I'm really trying to say that this is just not an astrophysical
discovery that we are talking about. Everything has got to, sort of, turn
around in order to come to terms with what is being said. And this, in a
way, is rather like what Irving was describing beforehand. There is a
paradigm shift involved in recognizing that it's not just ancient history we
have got wrong-it's all history.

So, what is my point? My point is that you do not have to dabble first in
mythology and prehistory and geology, as Velikovsky did, in order to
understand the sky. You first take the modern sky accessible to science,
especially during the Space Age, and you look at its' darker debris with a
view to relating its behavior to the more accessible human history which we
can, in principle, really understand. And by this approach you discover from
the dynamics of the material in space which I'm talking about that a huge
comet must have settled in a Taurid orbit some 20,000 years ago, whose dense
meteor stream for 10,000 years almost certainly produced the last Ice Age.

(Missing Text due to change of tape)

The chance of a collision with Kronos, as with any other comet was, in fact,
remote. And mankind settled into a Golden Age. But some time at perihelion,
around 3,000 B.C., it is likely that Kronos ran very close to Venus and
split, like Shoemaker-Levy. And a trail of new, dazzling comets circulated
around the Taurid stream-evidently, for centuries. Somewhere in this array
still was the Kronos remnant; less bright, perhaps. And a new leader, Zeus
or Marduk, perhaps, much brighter, together with a new serpentine Milky Way,
the home of chaos.

By 2,000 B.C., due to an orbital precession, things got worse, for the trail
was now crossing the Earth's orbit and mayhem ensued. The Sumerian
civilization came to an end under a barrage of Tsunguskas, thunderbolts, all
over a period of a couple of centuries and we were now in a sky of foreboding.
Then passed another 2,500 years with Zeus in decline and Kronos already
barely visible, while the latter's orbit precessed until we come to the next
intersection with the Earth's orbit around 500 A.D. when mayhem again ensured.
This time the Roman civilization collapsed and the dark age was in place.
And it was Plato and the Christians, of course, with their knowledge acquired
from the Magi who had predicted this "end of the world."

In the medieval society which then emerged, it was natural that they should
first invoke the world of demons and foreboding. But eventually it seemed
that the danger was passed, and by the twelfth century the Europeans were
changing back to the Aristotelian picture of inspiration and supposed
enlightenment. The Taurid and probably the Kronos remnant, are still there,
of course.

And the next crossing of the Earth's orbit will be around 3,000 A.D. There's
no guarantee of avoiding additional bombardments before then, and, of course,
there may be another Jesus Christ.

I'm going to come to an end and possibly leave no time for questions, I'm
afraid. But I am told that I'm going to be up here again.

What, then, should Velikovskian's make of all these additions to our cosmic
environment? Well, my first point, I think, is that we do not need to move
the planets around to get catastrophes. Super Tsunguskas will do it all.

Point two-everything we say makes no challenge to conventional physics, or
astrophysics, for that matter.

And point three-everything we say, as Velikovsky would have wished, does make
a challenge to conventional history.

The new picture is one of punctuated peace. It is the picture, I would
suggest, enunciated by both Spengler and Toynbee (not the world's most
favorite historians nowadays), one in which new cultures emerged from chaos,
with a shout, to become civilizations which then stagnate or decline, slowly.
Only with a fresh cosmic crisis do they climb to new heights or collapse
altogether, providing us with a new paradigm shift.

The picture I am describing is, again, rather like the one that Irving Wolfe
was describing previously. I would like to follow Irving Wolfe here, and
suggest th
http://www.kronia.com/symposium/clube.txt

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...a huge comet must have settled in a Taurid orbit some 20,000 years ago, whose dense meteor stream for 10,000 years almost certainly produced the last Ice Age.

Must have? Almost certainly? BS. Those numbers are far too recent for the beginning of the last ice age. Marine and ice core data clearly show that the last 400,000 years of earth's climate have consisted of relatively short interglacial periods of 10 to 30 thousand years (we're in one now) and longer periods, about 70 to 100 thousand years, of glaciation. The most recent glaciation, called the Wisconsin in North America, began about 110 thousand years ago and ended about 12 thousand years ago.

Moreover, the kind of bombardment he's talking about would have produced many more impact craters than are visible on the earth's surface, that's far too short a time for erosion and deposition to have obliterated them. That guy's just making stuff up.

 

[Kreskin]

I keep telling you guys, it's getting way to hard to bull****.

 

[CDNBear]

I keep telling you guys, it's getting way to hard to bull****.

Especially with Dex around.8O

 

[Kreskin]

Especially with Dex around.8O

Between Dex, Toro, and Tonington there isn't much that gets by.

 

[CDNBear]

Between Dex, Toro, and Tonington there isn't much that gets by.

Pretty much!!! Toro just schooled me on the cost of war...8O

 

[Kreskin]

Pretty much!!! Toro just schooled me on the cost of war...8O

He's a pretty smart cookie.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

That's the nature of science and critical thinking, my friends. I don't want to believe, I want to know, and in the absence of good evidence I will not believe. The methods of science are the only reliable means we've ever found for testing the truth content of ideas, and that they work spectacularly well is undeniable. The medical knowledge that prolongs our lives and the technical knowledge that's created the computers and networks that enable us to talk on on this message board are all products of science, and they work whether you believe in them or not. Belief doesn't enter into it, and the lesson seems clear to me: where belief is a critical factor in whether something is perceived to work or not work, we're probably deceiving ourselves.

 

[eanassir]

For the last two hundred years of Enlightenment we have been rewriting history

Darkbeaver,

Truly, I cannot grasp all this information, but I may say these hints:
The Sumerian perished because they were idolaters worshipping stones and the stars of the sky; mostly there was either some plague [i.e. epidemic; they called it plague in the past.] or their enemy attacked and annihilated them.
When people acts according to the First Commandment: that God is One, they will prosper, and when they fall into idolatry and association with God, they will perish; it is like adultery; in fact both adultery and idolatry is betrayal of the husband and God, respectively.

Jesus will come once again, as did he promise; this will be in his advent; which will only be by God's permission and decree. There will not be another Jesus Christ.
This is in the Quran 4: 157- 159​

وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلاَّ اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا . بَل رَّفَعَهُ اللّهُ إِلَيْهِ وَكَانَ اللّهُ عَزِيزًا حَكِيمًا . وَإِن مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلاَّ لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا​

The explanation: (and those who differ therein are full of doubt thereof, with no [certain] knowledge, but only conjecture to follow; they slew him not for certain.
But God raised his [soul] up to Himself; and God is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
And there shall be none of the people of the Bible [lit. Scripture] but shall believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Judgment he will be witness against them.)

I cannot say so and so will happen in the future, or had happened in the past for certain; even nowadays the weather anticipation is not 100% correct. But when this is recorded by the word of God, it is certainly true.

eanassir​