Velikovsky was a "true man of science"? The guy who made planets collide and made the Earth stop in it's rotation? Velikovsky's ranting daydreams are nonsense. Einstein told him his "Worlds in collision" was impossible. He should have listened.
Carl Sagan TV science idiot, contributions O
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
Velikovsky was a "true man of science"? The guy who made planets collide and made the Earth stop in it's rotation? Velikovsky's ranting daydreams are nonsense. Einstein told him his "Worlds in collision" was impossible. He should have listened.
You mean the guy who popularized the big bang and bent space? Haven't read the Crothers stuff have you? On the one hand you accept without reservation the idea of large body collisions such as asteroids why would you have reservations about other bigger collisions. Forget Velikovsky forget Sagan read the damn Crothers material.
It is easy to see that you are angry db. Obviously Dr. Sagan's work caught the attention of a lot of people, including those people who
decide who gets a Pulitzer prize for authorship. His book, Cosmos sold 500 million copies world wide in God knows how many languages. Is there another book in the last century that came even close? I don't know how many copies of Dragons of Eden were sold but since it won Dr. Sagan a Pulitzer Prize, I'm guessing it did pretty well.
Db, I don't know how you can call him an idiot, but you must know that he was not.
No I don't know that at all. Where does popularity fit in the Smethod? Sagan was marketed like patent medicine. History is chock full of medal and ribbon bearing idiots with brains. Sagan was PR for private corporate science which has since three quarters of a century kept the public entertained with black holes and singularities.It is a very dark matter for humanity to be deceived with errors of that magnitude for this long. He was just a pikeman for uniformitarians. Bigger brains may entertain more error faster. A big brain does not immunize a person from human frailties. Science is worth a great deal of money I hope you don't believe that it has not corrupted the institution. The purpose of science at this time is to turn a cash profit by regulating the supply and demand of knowledge, same governing principles of every other corrupted human institution. I hope you don't think it is holy ground. Velikovskys sin was in his very dangerous questions. Science is a very dirty business these days.
Damn right. A Sagan pocket book won't open squat.
No. Velikovsky's sin was that he wrote about planets colliding, and the freezing of a planet's axial rotation when he didn't have a clue about the most basic orbital mechanics. The planets he discussed are now in near perfect circular orbits. How is that possible without divine intervention....Are you born again db?
That's because you're not using the book correctly. You need an open mind for it to work. Your mind is closed to anything resembling established science, which when used properly, like a Sagan book, can lead to new lines of inquiry, and new knowledge to add to the tapestry of human understanding.
The big bang is established it just isn't science. "An open mind"! Coming from you, please please please you are amazing. "The tapestry of human understanding" that's a Sagan line for sure hahahahahahaha the quilt of human accomplishmenthahahahah the mittens of human developement hahahahahahahahah For your information, facts may be established, science can never be.
That you find fantastic, but a dot on a piece of paper spewing out a universe is perfectly reasonable.
That you find fantastic, but a dot on a piece of paper spewing out a universe is perfectly reasonable.
Last edited:
Who said anything about a dot on a piece of paper?
beaver you keep bringing up the dirty snowball as something that is unheard of as well but every lump orbiting in
the rings of Saturn is exactly that....a dirty snowball.
Billions and Billions : Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium
ISBN: 9780679411604
Reviews Detail:
BookPage Reviews
When he died in December 1996 at the tragically young age of 62, Carl Sagan left behind a formidable legacy. As President of the Planetary Society, Director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell, and a prominent influence on NASA, Sagan was involved in many of the most important scientific issues of our time, from the search for extraterrestrial life to the battle against nuclear weapons.As author of numerous nonfiction books and a powerful science fiction novel, Sagan left his mark on the literature of his field. His book "Cosmos" was the most successful science book in history. But none of these accomplishments made Sagan a household name like his public television series "Cosmos," which has been watched by half a billion people worldwide. Sagan found himself a missionary for science and reason.This posthumous essay collection begins with the story of how Sagan came to be famous for a phrase he never used, but which Johnny Carson made popular in his imitations of Sagan. The tone of some of the essays in "Billions and Billions" can be found in the titles of the three parts. "The Power and Beauty of Quantification" describes in six essays the delight in learning about the ways of the universe. Part II, "What Are Conservatives Conserving?", addresses everything from the depletion of the ozone layer to ways in which science and religion can work together for the common good. "Where Hearts and Minds Collide" is the title of Part III. Topics include abortion, the responsibilities of citizenship, and the evolution of moral precepts such as the Golden Rule.The most poignant of all these essays is the last, "In the Valley of the Shadow," Sagan's account of his struggle with myelodysplasia. Late in 1994, doctors suddenly informed Sagan that he had six months to live unless he acted immediately. Chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants were his only hope. Sagan tells the story with his usual wit and lucidity, and ends on a hopeful note in October of 1996. Two months later he died.Sagan's longtime personal and professional collaborator, his wife Ann Druyan, adds a moving epilogue in which she describes Sagan's last days. There were no deathbed recantations of his lack of religious faith. Sagan ended the book with a quotation from Albert Einstein: "I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."Reviewed by Michael Sims. Copyright 1999 BookPage Reviews
First you call his ideas "idiotic" and then you pretty much admit he is smarter than you....classic!!! But I guess if changing midstream from idiotic to dishonest floats yer boat, knock yerself out.
I use them sometimes to open up a can of whoop-ass.
Unintended Consequences
Posted on April 12, 2011 by Louis Hissink
Astronomer Hilton Ratcliffe published an article on the issue of man-made global warming on Ndaba of April 2009, after which followed a reply by one Malcolm Keeping to which Hilton subsequently responded. In his final response Hilton mentioned one:
Arno Arrak, author of the book What Warming? Satellite view of global climate change; he was a nuclear chemist on NASA’s Apollo programme: “In 2007 we got some serious cooling while climate models using carbon dioxide theory insisted on relentless warming at the same time. If a theory predicts warming and we get cooling that theory as a scientific theory has failed and must be abandoned.”
There is a persistent belief that the observed electrical charge in clouds is caused by the bumping of water molecules against each other causing charge separation, and hence electrical fields and electricity, similar to that believed to happen in some volcanic eruptions. However if this mechanism is plausible, then the commercial vacuum cleaner made by Dyson using cyclonic activity would have to be an electrical generator – and which we know isn’t, so the standard idea for charge separation by colliding particles is wrong. We have it back to front.
The irony of the situation is that while the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has been resoundingly falsified by observation and measurement, sceptics continue to believe that none the less there still is a CO2 greenhouse gas effect, and that the argument is over how much an effect is present. It does not occur to them that they have falsified the greenhouse gas effect itself, or it does, and if we admit that, then it also means that Carl Sagan was wrong about Venus when he proposed a runaway greenhouse gas effect to explain the Venusian thermal anomaly; Velikovsky deduced that Venus was hot because it was a recently formed planet from historical data . This, and other observations, prompted Velikovsky to propose that there was an additional force operating in the universe – the force of electromagnetics – in addition to gravity. We now know he was right, and that electro-dynamic forces form the basis of the physics of the plasma universe.
However it is the, almost violent, rejection of Velikovsky’s hypotheses that forms the basis of the current obsession with the CO2 greenhouse gas effect – for to deny the existence of this effect, is to admit that Velikovsky was right.
DB (Velikovsky wins!) hahahahahahahahahaha
Posted on April 12, 2011 by Louis Hissink
Astronomer Hilton Ratcliffe published an article on the issue of man-made global warming on Ndaba of April 2009, after which followed a reply by one Malcolm Keeping to which Hilton subsequently responded. In his final response Hilton mentioned one:
Arno Arrak, author of the book What Warming? Satellite view of global climate change; he was a nuclear chemist on NASA’s Apollo programme: “In 2007 we got some serious cooling while climate models using carbon dioxide theory insisted on relentless warming at the same time. If a theory predicts warming and we get cooling that theory as a scientific theory has failed and must be abandoned.”
There is a persistent belief that the observed electrical charge in clouds is caused by the bumping of water molecules against each other causing charge separation, and hence electrical fields and electricity, similar to that believed to happen in some volcanic eruptions. However if this mechanism is plausible, then the commercial vacuum cleaner made by Dyson using cyclonic activity would have to be an electrical generator – and which we know isn’t, so the standard idea for charge separation by colliding particles is wrong. We have it back to front.
The irony of the situation is that while the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has been resoundingly falsified by observation and measurement, sceptics continue to believe that none the less there still is a CO2 greenhouse gas effect, and that the argument is over how much an effect is present. It does not occur to them that they have falsified the greenhouse gas effect itself, or it does, and if we admit that, then it also means that Carl Sagan was wrong about Venus when he proposed a runaway greenhouse gas effect to explain the Venusian thermal anomaly; Velikovsky deduced that Venus was hot because it was a recently formed planet from historical data . This, and other observations, prompted Velikovsky to propose that there was an additional force operating in the universe – the force of electromagnetics – in addition to gravity. We now know he was right, and that electro-dynamic forces form the basis of the physics of the plasma universe.
However it is the, almost violent, rejection of Velikovsky’s hypotheses that forms the basis of the current obsession with the CO2 greenhouse gas effect – for to deny the existence of this effect, is to admit that Velikovsky was right.
DB (Velikovsky wins!) hahahahahahahahahaha
What tiresome ignorant fools the people you cite are, thinking what happens in a vacuum cleaner is comparable to what happens in clouds and volcanoes, and you're ill-informed enough to believe them. The scale of the events and the density of particles aren't remotely comparable. It also doesn't seem to occur to you or the person you cite that the Dyson vacuum might be designed to prevent charge separation. It IS plugged into a grounded power supply, remember, and a certain mixture of air and dust is explosive, so one might reasonably suppose the machine was engineered to prevent that.
A vacuum does build up a static charge though. The density of particles in normal household use isn't enough to create a noticeable charge, unless perhaps your floors are a few centimeters deep in dust, but suck up a dense pile of fine sawdust and you WILL get a static charge on the hose, enough to raise the hairs on your arms, and make small wood chips stand up on it. I've seen it many times on a shop vac hose attached to to the dust collection ports on a table saw and a router table. I see it, in fact, every time I use those tools.
Try learning and doing some physics instead of just talking about it.
Did I ever mention the dust powered power plant?
You need a piston about the size of the top of the old grain-elevators and a very large and very heavy well-balanced flywheel (dug into a hole so it can't go running down the street should something go wrong) Obviously coming from the west i would promote grain dust as the propellant and the ignition via time internal static charge(s) The exhaust needs a muffler that is about 300ft ft long and underground.
Are you trying to teach us something? Or just repeating gossip? Link please.
Last I checked my vacum cleaner is grounded so I doubt I'd get any piezelectric charges in there but bet one could put on one helluva triboluminescence show for the kids.