Baghdad/Mars connection

[Baker]

Well this is mainly just for amusement but Richard C. Hoagland has made some amazing discoveries drawing comparisons between parts of Baghdad and the planet Mars.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/iraqmars.html

[corplinx]

Heeeeelarious.

[Wolverine]

Mainly?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Mainly?

Ok its totally for amusement then Geez critics

[Reginald]

Oh per-leeeeese!

[Checkmite]

http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/Bag-Face2_sm.jpg

http://66.227.101.70/otn/laughing/laugh2.gif

[Questioninggeller]

LOL... WOW Haha "Workshop" and "real" reasons

[Troll]

Originally posted by Baker
Well this is mainly just for amusement but Richard C. Hoagland has made some amazing discoveries drawing comparisons between parts of Baghdad and the planet Mars.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/iraqmars.html

Oh, the planet Mars. Sorry. I was thinking of Mars bars, Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you show the world that you are one;)

[Troll]

and my nut comment was about Richard C. Hoagland

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Baker
Well this is mainly just for amusement but Richard C. Hoagland has made some amazing discoveries drawing comparisons between parts of Baghdad and the planet Mars.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/iraqmars.html

Hoagland is a brilliant man. Many of his cosmology theories have been proven correct time and again. He will go down in history as one of the greatest space scientists of all time.

That said, brilliant men like him can wander with their thoughts about the world. Many brilliant men do.

JK

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hoagland is a brilliant man. Many of his cosmology theories have been proven correct time and again. He will go down in history as one of the greatest space scientists of all time.

That said, brilliant men like him can wander with their thoughts about the world. Many brilliant men do.

JK

Dude, call yourself a freak. Please? Because calling yourself a freaking conservative is detrimental to those of us that are but yet retain our freaking brain cells

[Baker]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hoagland is a brilliant man. Many of his cosmology theories have been proven correct time and again. He will go down in history as one of the greatest space scientists of all time.

That said, brilliant men like him can wander with their thoughts about the world. Many brilliant men do.

JK

I was always interested in his monuments on Mars theories are from an ancient civilization but admit it was more do to wishful thanking on my part.

But lately some of his theories have proved to me that the skeptics have been right along he was against the war because he thought the US was trying to just get a ancient object that Saddam had that proved the true nature of man and now this one.

[Jedi Knight]

Well, if humans never lived on Mars, then where did this chick statue come from?

http://www.marsearthconnection.com/images/e14ar2y.jpg

JK

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Well, if humans never lived on Mars, then where did this chick statue come from?

JK

What am I supposed to be looking for in those pictures, please? :confused:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


What am I supposed to be looking for in those pictures, please? :confused:

They are pictures of some type of memorial or graveyard of some type.

The top right picture shows a lady statue holding what appears to be a staff. She has a roman-looking face which is pretty interesting too.

The best part of all this is that these pictures are enhancements made from JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) feed taken from the surface of Mars topography.

That's right...and these aren't the only ones. What does it all mean? It means humanoids lived on Mars and built things there. Pretty remarkable, I say.

JK

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


They are pictures of some type of memorial or graveyard of some type.

The top right picture shows a lady statue holding what appears to be a staff. She has a roman-looking face which is pretty interesting too.

The best part of all this is that these pictures are enhancements made from JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) feed taken from the surface of Mars topography.

That's right...and these aren't the only ones. What does it all mean? It means humanoids lived on Mars and built things there. Pretty remarkable, I say.

JK



ROFLMAO!!!!

At least some people get it.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot




ROFLMAO!!!!

At least some people get it.

True, true. Some of us do get it. Like this photo series...these structures weren't made by "natural forces".

http://www.marsearthconnection.com/images/e14ar2.jpg

Nasa and the famous JPL have to be thanked for providing this valuable information.

Your ancestors built these structures on the surface of Mars.

JK

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

That is obviously a giant half egg from a giant space chicken that the Iraqi's are using to fly their WMDs back and forth from Iraq to Mars to confound the weapons inspectors and now the US military.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot
That is obviously a giant half egg from a giant space chicken that the Iraqi's are using to fly their WMDs back and forth from Iraq to Mars to confound the weapons inspectors and now the US military.

No, it is an observatory of some type, overlooking the other monuments.

JK

[DrBenway]

Jedi, Mars has no real atmosphere to speak of.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DrBenway
Jedi, Mars has no real atmosphere to speak of.

There is water and green vegetation on Mars. Something happened to it to cause the planet to die a long time ago.

JK

[corplinx]

When I was a young child and forced to go to an Assemblies of God church, they had a special speaker who came in and did a seminar on how all rock-and-roll music was evil.

At one point, he told the audience about bad messages being recorded in music backwards. He demonstrated by playing clips of music backwards and said beforehand what what each clip said.


Now.... Even as a child I knew this was pure rubbish! Most of the church members did also and were none too pleased. It was just a bunch of noise and squelching. However, since he told what the patterns were before he played each clip, people would try to match what he said in sounds that were being played.

So you, had some people looking pissed for being fed a load of tripe, and you had others (the marks) nodding their heads with shocked looks at the discovery.




Which brings me to Hoagland. There are _no structures_ in those pictures. If they showed them to you and didnt tell you anything first, you wouldnt see any structures in the pictures. Unless those pictures of his are the 3d kind you have to stare at the right way to have the picture pop out at you, then I dont know how I am seeing them and not seeing what you see.

Jedi, think about this long and hard and then look at those pictures again. There is a reason the Hoagland camp annotates photos. Because if you looked at them without reference, you would see nothing!

Trust me.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
When I was a young child and forced to go to an Assemblies of God church, they had a special speaker who came in and did a seminar on how all rock-and-roll music was evil.

At one point, he told the audience about bad messages being recorded in music backwards. He demonstrated by playing clips of music backwards and said beforehand what what each clip said.


Now.... Even as a child I knew this was pure rubbish! Most of the church members did also and were none too pleased. It was just a bunch of noise and squelching. However, since he told what the patterns were before he played each clip, people would try to match what he said in sounds that were being played.

So you, had some people looking pissed for being fed a load of tripe, and you had others (the marks) nodding their heads with shocked looks at the discovery.




Which brings me to Hoagland. There are _no structures_ in those pictures. If they showed them to you and didnt tell you anything first, you wouldnt see any structures in the pictures. Unless those pictures of his are the 3d kind you have to stare at the right way to have the picture pop out at you, then I dont know how I am seeing them and not seeing what you see.

Jedi, think about this long and hard and then look at those pictures again. There is a reason the Hoagland camp annotates photos. Because if you looked at them without reference, you would see nothing!

Trust me.

Those photos didn't come from Hoagland. They came from NASA/JPL.

JK

[The Fool]

Jedi.
If you own a digital camera take a nice pic of the surface of of something with a slightly rough texture, a piece of fruit or something. Next, enlarge the image well beyond the point where the image is of any use. Then look for all the effects caused by pixilation and noise caused by image compression and processing. You will find much better statues, pyramids and pictures of ancient structures than these mars pics. Thus, you will prove that our origins are not from mars but that we were origionally microscopic inhabitants of an orange.

[clk]

Originally posted by DrBenway
Jedi, Mars has no real atmosphere to speak of.

Since when do facts have any effect on JK? Remember when he claimed that the current theories on gravity were wrong, and that the formula for centripetal acceleration was actually the formula for calculating gravity?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by clk


Since when do facts have any effect on JK? Remember when he claimed that the current theories on gravity were wrong, and that the formula for centripetal acceleration was actually the formula for calculating gravity?

You need the Hooked On Phonics program to take care of the reading comprehension problem that you have.

The centripetal gravity formula I brought up was about programs to create ships in space that could be used to travel through space at great distances. It had nothing to do with calculating gravity, and you didn't even know what it was until days later when someone else talked about it. In other words, you were trolling. If you are a chick, that would mean you are an Ogress.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool
Jedi.
If you own a digital camera take a nice pic of the surface of of something with a slightly rough texture, a piece of fruit or something. Next, enlarge the image well beyond the point where the image is of any use. Then look for all the effects caused by pixilation and noise caused by image compression and processing. You will find much better statues, pyramids and pictures of ancient structures than these mars pics. Thus, you will prove that our origins are not from mars but that we were origionally microscopic inhabitants of an orange.

Ah, but the problem with your thesis is that those photos were taken at the 1.5 - 2.0 meter parameter. They weren't taken via a microscope.

If you take a picture of a skyscaper, is it an orange or a skyscraper?

JK

[corplinx]

I saw a cloud today that looked just like an elephant. However, it wasn't an elephant.

The Hoagland camp is making the same fallacies that I would have if I had concluded there was indeed an elephant.

[BillyJoe]

"When I look up into the night sky I can't believe the Big Band Theory"

You crack me up JK. :D

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
I saw a cloud today that looked just like an elephant. However, it wasn't an elephant.

The Hoagland camp is making the same fallacies that I would have if I had concluded there was indeed an elephant.

If you take a picture of your wife, do you see your wife or an orange?

JK

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If you take a picture of your wife, do you see your wife or an orange? An apple. ;)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


If you take a picture of your wife, do you see your wife or an orange?

JK

Let's say you take a picture of my wife. You zoom in so much that all you see is a patch of skin from her arm. Anyone I show it to will not recognize it as a picture of my wife.

For the record, this is a picture of my wife http://penguinppc.org/~jeramy/PICS/angel2.jpg

[Baker]

Wow she’s a cutie corplinx can I get a close up of her? J/k

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx


Let's say you take a picture of my wife. You zoom in so much that all you see is a patch of skin from her arm. Anyone I show it to will not recognize it as a picture of my wife.

For the record, this is a picture of my wife http://penguinppc.org/~jeramy/PICS/angel2.jpg

Wow, she is nice and healthy. Is she a conservative? (hopefully lol).

Now, when I look upon the picture of your wife, I see a very beautiful woman, not an orange. The reason I say that is because the film and the camera settings took that picture in focus.

The same can be said for the NASA/JPL photos. This is the photo from NASA:

http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/mer2003/mocs/Images/E14-01154/E14-01154_01.jpg

In the top left corner is the site and it is very clear at 1.5 to 2 meters resolution. At that resolution, there should be nothing in the topographical data with symmetry. There should be no domes, rectangles, statues, etc. Enhancing the photograph brings all that out very clearly. It is not looking at it under a microscope, nor is there such a thing as "picture noise". If you have a rectangle stone structure made by humans in a picture and the picture is taken from 10,000 feet and the rectangle structure can be seen, it is man-made, not a "force of nature".

JK

[BillyJoe]

Let's forget about the NASA photos for a while - who wants to see more of corplinx' wife?

[corplinx]

You realize a picture is only 2 dimensions? What seems to be "clearly" a man-made structure is based on a two dimensional representations of what actually exists.

In other words, it isn't "clearly" squat. If I took a picture of the great wall of china from 10k feet up, I could conclude it was the great wall of china from corroborating factors.

However, there is _no_ evidence to corroborate man-made(or alien) structures on Mars.

A two dimensional representation from 10k feet away is not ample evidence.

As with all areas of skepticism, the burden of proof for fantastic claims is on the people who make them. In other words, I don't have to disprove Mr. Hoagland's conclusions. He and people who believe him must instead provide conclusive evidence.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
You realize a picture is only 2 dimensions? What seems to be "clearly" a man-made structure is based on a two dimensional representations of what actually exists.

In other words, it isn't "clearly" squat. If I took a picture of the great wall of china from 10k feet up, I could conclude it was the great wall of china from corroborating factors.

However, there is _no_ evidence to corroborate man-made(or alien) structures on Mars.

A two dimensional representation from 10k feet away is not ample evidence.

As with all areas of skepticism, the burden of proof for fantastic claims is on the people who make them. In other words, I don't have to disprove Mr. Hoagland's conclusions. He and people who believe him must instead provide conclusive evidence.

I agree, and Mr. Hoagland is working diligently to achieve that. One of the issues he is working on is getting infrared images that NASA has of nearly the entire surface of Mars but won't release to the public. (I wonder why lol)

The ultimate goal is to send a manned mission there once and for all to settle it.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

There is a lot of NASA deception about Mars. Remember when you were a kid reading your science textbook and it showed Mars as the "Red Planet" in every picture?

Here is what Mars really looks like:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/colors/image20.jpg

No oranges there, is there? Gosh, it isn't even a red planet after all!

JK

[Baker]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Let's forget about the NASA photos for a while - who wants to see more of corplinx' wife?

All second that!:D

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by corplinx
You realize a picture is only 2 dimensions?We don't care we just wanna see more.

[Aardvark_DK]

Errrr, guys? Hello? You're talking to JK... Hello? I mean, what the hell are you thinking about? Why not just have a conversation with that crack in the wall?

Still, nice of JK to remind us all that he's not just insane, he's totally insane.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
There is a lot of NASA deception about Mars. Remember when you were a kid reading your science textbook and it showed Mars as the "Red Planet" in every picture?

Here is what Mars really looks like:

ttp://www.enterprisemission.com/images/colors/image20.jpg

No oranges there, is there? Gosh, it isn't even a red planet after all!

JK


So give me the links to those pictures on Nasa, not some whacked-out conspiracy site.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot



So give me the links to those pictures on Nasa, not some whacked-out conspiracy site.

http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/mer2003/mocs/Images/E14-01154/E14-01154_01.jpg

http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/mer2003/mocs/Images/E14-01154/

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
Errrr, guys? Hello? You're talking to JK... Hello? I mean, what the hell are you thinking about? Why not just have a conversation with that crack in the wall?

Still, nice of JK to remind us all that he's not just insane, he's totally insane.

Is that all you have to say, commie?

JK

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Is that all you have to say, commie?
Thank you. My point exactly.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

There is water and green vegetation on Mars. Something happened to it to cause the planet to die a long time ago.


Ask a HVAC professional, JK.

[DrBenway]

Who carved the famous face on the side of a mountain in New Hampshire?

[Bjorn]

These famous carvings of alien faces are incredible:

http://www.physikgarden.com/Makoor/rocks/aliens.jpg

Further comments can be found here:

http://www.physikgarden.com/rocks.html

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


They are pictures of some type of memorial or graveyard of some type.

The top right picture shows a lady statue holding what appears to be a staff. She has a roman-looking face which is pretty interesting too.



All I see is something that vaguely suggests the top of George Washington's head - proving that the ancient Martians had discovered the Dollar Bill.

You know, come to think of it, George Washington was a Freemason... :eek:

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


It means humanoids lived on Mars and built things there. Pretty remarkable, I say.



Originally posted by Jedi Knight
No, it is an observatory of some type, overlooking the other monuments.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If you have a rectangle stone structure made by humans in a picture and the picture is taken from 10,000 feet and the rectangle structure can be seen, it is man-made, not a "force of nature".

If I may...allow me to demonstrate the problem, as I see it, with what you're claiming.

My problem isn't specifically with the idea that humans came from Mars. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I know very little about that particular subject, and I will leave it to others to argue those points.

My problem is thus: you've got a bunch of arial photos of different places on the surface of Mars. You see regular lines in them, and take this to imply some sort of interference or intelligent intent. Straight lines do appear in nature - but nevertheless.

Take your statement above that

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

It means humanoids lived on Mars and built things there.

Why does it mean that? Supposing the structures are regular, how can one tell from a photograph that the people who made them must have been humanoid?

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
No, it is an observatory of some type, overlooking the other monuments.

Again, assuming they've been built, how do you know it's an "observatory" of some type? Why can't it be a bunker, or palace, or church? Why would a "monument" need something to overlook it, when you can see said monument from everywhere? The statue of the "lady" (I still say it's the top half of Washington's face) must be several hundred meters (if not a few kilometers) across. Why would an observatory need to overlook it?

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If you have a rectangle stone structure made by humans in a picture and the picture is taken from 10,000 feet and the rectangle structure can be seen, it is man-made, not a "force of nature".

But did you watch the structure being built? How do you know for sure it was made by "humans"? How can you be sure it was "built" at all? It doesn't even have straight sides for crying out loud...the edges flow everywhere and are indistinct.

The problem is, you can tell nothing from one badly-taken photo of an area. You need a couple more to compare. Take the "face" photo - it looked almost "roman" in its earliest forms....now, extreme and very clear closeup photos of the thing show absolutely nothing even remotely human-looking. Maybe you ought to wait until Hoagland gets his "maps" of the surface of Mars before declaring the problem solved.

Let's do an experiment - I'll need your cooperation for this one. When Hoagland gets his images, he will undoubtedly release a whole series of "strange artifacts" he will have found. Let's see if your "lady statue" and "observatory" are among them. If they're not, would it be safe to assume that the new detailed maps demonstrate they are not man-made, as you say?

I invite you to re-examine your claim that Hoagland is one of the greatest space scientists of all time. What has he done for space science? He's looked at a few pictures, and said "That looks like a building". Is that what makes a person a "great space scientist"? What about all the people who've spent their entire lives remotely flying spacecraft to other worlds, studying atmospheric composition, and painstaking planetary analysis? Can Hoagland stand on their shoulders and take their hard-earned spotlight because he looks at a picture of a bunch of rocks and says "Look, a face!"? Is that fair to any of them?

How would you feel?

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Well, if humans never lived on Mars, then where did this chick statue come from?

<vague pictures of stuff>

JK

Did you get these from ICAN's web site?

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hoagland is a brilliant man blah blah blah....He will go down in history as one of the greatest space scientists of all time.

That said, brilliant men like him can wander with their thoughts about the world. Many brilliant men do.

JK

Yes, and at his current rate of "discovery" he will eventually be associated with the likes of other great thinkers like L Ron Hubbard, Sai Baba, Uri Geller and that Time Cube guy.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by NightG1


Did you get these from ICAN's web site?

Right click on the photo, go to properties and it gives the URL to the site.

Here is the webpage http://www.marsearthconnection.com/mere14.html

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
If I may...allow me to demonstrate the problem, as I see it, with what you're claiming.

You are entitled to your opinion.

My problem isn't specifically with the idea that humans came from Mars. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I know very little about that particular subject, and I will leave it to others to argue those points.

OK, good.

My problem is thus: you've got a bunch of arial photos of different places on the surface of Mars. You see regular lines in them, and take this to imply some sort of interference or intelligent intent. Straight lines do appear in nature - but nevertheless.

Sure, straight lines appear individually. They rarely do not appear in groups of objects covering hundreds, if not thousands of acres that are three dimensional in construction.

Take your statement above that

OK

Why does it mean that? Supposing the structures are regular, how can one tell from a photograph that the people who made them must have been humanoid?

Because they are humanoid. They are statues of humanoids, accompanied by buildings that humanoids have built all through known history. It is an incredible coincidence for it not to be of humanoid construction.

Again, assuming they've been built, how do you know it's an "observatory" of some type? Why can't it be a bunker, or palace, or church? Why would a "monument" need something to overlook it, when you can see said monument from everywhere? The statue of the "lady" (I still say it's the top half of Washington's face) must be several hundred meters (if not a few kilometers) across. Why would an observatory need to overlook it?

I am not going to go into what my opinions are of the site in question. I called it an observatory because it looks like one with the dome on top and the windows, ect. Other people may form a different opinion of the structure. That is fine. One thing all must agree on is that there is a structure there, based upon JPL/NASA photographic evidence, a structure with a perfect circumferance and perfect dome. That never appears in nature to the scale these photos are derived.

But did you watch the structure being built? How do you know for sure it was made by "humans"? How can you be sure it was "built" at all? It doesn't even have straight sides for crying out loud...the edges flow everywhere and are indistinct.

No, they are very distinct. The dome is perfect, absolutely perfect. That does not occur in nature. I wish I was alive to watch it being built, but that probably occured hundreds of thousands of years ago, if not millions of years. We will have to go there via space travel to confirm the date it was constructed and escavate the site.

The problem is, you can tell nothing from one badly-taken photo of an area. You need a couple more to compare. Take the "face" photo - it looked almost "roman" in its earliest forms....now, extreme and very clear closeup photos of the thing show absolutely nothing even remotely human-looking. Maybe you ought to wait until Hoagland gets his "maps" of the surface of Mars before declaring the problem solved.

The main photo the enhancements were taken from is available to the public. Feel free to use it yourself. The structures built there are not going anywhere.

Let's do an experiment - I'll need your cooperation for this one. When Hoagland gets his images, he will undoubtedly release a whole series of "strange artifacts" he will have found. Let's see if your "lady statue" and "observatory" are among them. If they're not, would it be safe to assume that the new detailed maps demonstrate they are not man-made, as you say?

Hoagland has nothing to do with the images I posted showing the Roman chick statue.

I invite you to re-examine your claim that Hoagland is one of the greatest space scientists of all time. What has he done for space science? He's looked at a few pictures, and said "That looks like a building". Is that what makes a person a "great space scientist"? What about all the people who've spent their entire lives remotely flying spacecraft to other worlds, studying atmospheric composition, and painstaking planetary analysis? Can Hoagland stand on their shoulders and take their hard-earned spotlight because he looks at a picture of a bunch of rocks and says "Look, a face!"? Is that fair to any of them?

Hoagland is one of the greatest cosmologists of all time. The guy is simply brilliant. I predict (non-psychically) that many of his theories about Mars are going to be proven correct in the future and a monument will be built in his honor somewhere.

I can't speak for the rest of the people that you describe who took alternate scientific paths. Science is about research, debate, formulas, searching and the desire for humans to be more then they are--to shape their world. If a guy is inside a scientific laboratory plugging numbers into a computer for twenty years in a reseach project, that is his choice. Hoagland does his thing as a scientist and others do their thing.

The only thing that matters about science is that you publish first and your results can be verified or replicated in the laboratory or other scientific process.

How would you feel?

I think there is a lot of envy in the scientific research community as with all other professions. Hoagland continuously makes contributions to science. Sure some of his theories are pretty shaky, but he hits solid on many others, like the water flows on Mars which he was the first to announce and yet other scientists published years later on the subject without crediting him for it. Science is like any other business--very competitive. There is no time for scientists to feel sorry for other scientists who may not be as motivated in the search for the truth as they are.

What hinders many of the scientists you speak of is the fear to research such things and the potential personal and career damage it entails. Hoagland, to me, isn't worried about that and IMO is just doing his thing.

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I called it an observatory because it looks like one with the dome on top and the windows, ect. Other people may form a different opinion of the structure. That is fine. One thing all must agree on is that there is a structure there, based upon JPL/NASA photographic evidence, a structure with a perfect circumferance and perfect dome. That never appears in nature to the scale these photos are derived.


This is a joke....none of these photo's look like anything other than over enlarged over processed digital images...with all the associated digital "noise" The straight lines you see are artifacts of digital image processing, not aliens.....

If you were to show these smudges to people and ask them "what do you see" you would get a totally different set of answers than if you asked "who can see a statue". You have been duped by a conspiracy theory site. You have been preconditioned into seeing faces and shapes in random blotches. Go and look for faces and statues in cloud formations...you will find just as many. Maybe there are martian cities in the clouds??

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool

This is a joke....none of these photo's look like anything other than over enlarged over processed digital images...with all the associated digital "noise" The straight lines you see are artifacts of digital image processing, not aliens.....

If you were to show these smudges to people and ask them "what do you see" you would get a totally different set of answers than if you asked "who can see a statue". You have been duped by a conspiracy theory site. You have been preconditioned into seeing faces and shapes in random blotches. Go and look for faces and statues in cloud formations...you will find just as many. Maybe there are martian cities in the clouds??

...and people said humans would never fly, or that the Earth was not round.

JK

[corplinx]

Jedi, your a member here. Just take the "extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence" stance that we do.

I am afraid that I will need more evidence other than low resolution photographs to back up the claim:
1. what I am seeing is what the mars structure people claim
2. There is sufficient evidence to back this claim up

Join us, don't be afraid. People have been marks for alien runways in south america, "manmade" almost perfectly round boulders and other things that you can see close up.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


that the Earth was not round.

JK

The plebian said "the earth is square!".

The skeptic said "i see no evidence of the earth being round".

The difference is that when it was proven the earth was round, the skeptic accepted and the plebians burned them for witchcraft.


Similarly, a skeptic does not say "there is no life on mars and there never was". The skeptic says "there is no conclusive evidence".

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
Jedi, your a member here. Just take the "extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence" stance that we do.

I am afraid that I will need more evidence other than low resolution photographs to back up the claim:
1. what I am seeing is what the mars structure people claim
2. There is sufficient evidence to back this claim up

Join us, don't be afraid. People have been marks for alien runways in south america, "manmade" almost perfectly round boulders and other things that you can see close up.

Well, actually there are sites all across Earth that were created by intelligent beings that are as yet undefined. The "landing strips" that you refer to could very well be just that. I took a look at some of that research and there is one site that intrigues me which shows the planetary alignment for this solar system, even though Pluto wasn't discovered until thousands of years later.

I am a big space buff and have been for many years. It is easy to dismiss things, especially photographs, and say they are products of "noise" and other phenomenon opposite of what is seen in them. Hey, I merely present what I believe. You can disagree.

That said, it appears that the only way for this to be resolved once and for all is to send astronauts to Mars and check it out.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx


The plebian said "the earth is square!".

The skeptic said "i see no evidence of the earth being round".

The difference is that when it was proven the earth was round, the skeptic accepted and the plebians burned them for witchcraft.


Similarly, a skeptic does not say "there is no life on mars and there never was". The skeptic says "there is no conclusive evidence".

That is fine too. Be skeptical in your own way, and I will be skeptical in mine. This isn't a "psychic" issue. This is an issue that can be easily verified. Let's be skpetics together and send a team to Mars to confirm/deny it.

In the meantime, some cooperation from NASA would help if there is nothing to hide--2M infrared imaging of the site and others (that they have but won't release to the public).

If there is nothing to hide, why not show the pics? I say that as a 100% skeptic.

JK

[The Fool]

And while we are on the Hoagland topic...

The guy is a plagiarist and a fraud, not even a good one....

If you are going to be duped, at least be duped by a good fraudster...

Check this Hoagland classic..... Thats his modus.....make lots of money by selling books to the gullible.

From....
http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland_pt2.html

Free-Energy Machines
During the course of my 1990 monitoring of For The People broadcasts, Hoagland (with Chuck Harder) was also engaged in selling a book, published by FTP and edited by Hoagland, which promoted a perpetual-energy device dubbed the "N Machine." According to Hoagland on September 7, the machine opens "a gate to the 4th dimension [as it] reaches into space-time and converts direct electrical energy from the basic properties of the space-time continuum." He "clarified" matters on November 16:
It [only] looks like it's perpetual motion, but it's not. Because what I think is happening, based on our Cydonia work, is that the rotation of the magnets opens a gate to the 4th dimension, and the energy simply flows downhill from the 4th to the 3rd, and is manifest in 3-space as electrical energy. [The magnets] are hexagonally shaped in terms of their crystalline form, and it's the hexagonal pattern, which is really the double tetrahedral pattern, which is the heart of our Cydonia equations. . . . [And] there's a more general field effect [going on], a more general energy transfer, and that's what's doing the slowing down of time.
Further, Hoagland's studies in "tetrahedral geometry" suggest to him a connection not only between the "N Machine" and the Cydonia structures, but also with our own planet's "crop circles": "The measurements of the units by which this object on Earth [crop circle] was laid out are part and parcel of the exact same units that the objects on Mars are laid out -- Alexander Thom's famous megalithic yard, 2.72 British feet" (July 27).

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


In the meantime, some cooperation from NASA would help if there is nothing to hide--2M infrared imaging of the site and others (that they have but won't release to the public).

If there is nothing to hide, why not show the pics? I say that as a 100% skeptic.

JK
(groan) not the old "NASA is hiding something" conspiracy theory.... Who claims they have "secret" images? And what evidence do they have? This is the favourite claim of the conspiracy theory sites...

If NASA had a picture of Marvin the Martians summer house they would be the FIRST to publish...they would love it...Instant HUGE nasa budget to go to mars..... The old "public can't handle the truth" story? If these secret images are released we will all go crazy and sodomise each other???? what a joke....It belongs in the same category as the "we didn't go to the moon" loonies. JK, you don't subscribe to the "no moon landing" conspiracy theory....why not? they have just as much photographic evidence as the "marvins house on mars" mob.....

[corplinx]

I had an uncle that worked for NASA. It was one of the most mundane yet stressful jobs you could work. He calculated entry/exit trajectories.

His impressions of the job was one that was deadly serious yet woefully mundane.

Its not exactly conspiracy central. Its a place of hard work. Not hushed voices and shadows.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by corplinx


Its not exactly conspiracy central. Its a place of hard work. Not hushed voices and shadows.

Did he ever see a filing cabinet marked "secret mars images" or possibly "not to be released as it will cause the breakdown of civilised society"? :D

Conspiracy theorists love the old "secret images" line. Its not possible to prove that secret images do not exist. It allows them to continue to support thier conspiracy theories without having to present any rational evidence..... I know for a fact that George W Bush is an alien....Nasa has secret images of him with his human mask off......honest they do!

[corplinx]

http://www.skepticalmind.com/hoagland.html

Jedi, please start with this link and find your way to seeing the real truth about Hoagland. He may be no better than faith healer selling his books and tapes to the marks.

Don't feel bad, I bought a 2000 Jetta VR6 and found out the hard way that German quality is an oxymoron. All of us are a mark at least some of the time.

[BillyJoe]

You can't post another picture of your wife can you corplix - because it wasn't your wife was it corplinx - come on own up.....or dish up!

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
http://www.skepticalmind.com/hoagland.html

Jedi, please start with this link and find your way to seeing the real truth about Hoagland. He may be no better than faith healer selling his books and tapes to the marks.

Don't feel bad, I bought a 2000 Jetta VR6 and found out the hard way that German quality is an oxymoron. All of us are a mark at least some of the time.

You keep bringing up a "mark" like you are defining a con-man preying on innocent people to steal their money. Hoagland is not a con-man and everything I have read about him never included any faith healing-type books, ect. I don't know him personally, but after reading his work for many years I have come to the conclusion that he is onto something big regarding Mars.

Hoagland is a genius and the drawback of being a genius is that geniuses can sometimes bite off more than they can chew at times and get involved in too many things publicly. Hoagland has done that at times and he is eccentric when dealing with certain space topics, but that does not detract from the work that he has done which has been proven right time and again.

Look at a couple of things Hoagland has done confirmed years later by other scientific peers:

1) Confirmed the moon of Europa was covered in ice. (Hoagland was the first to publish about this).

2) Confirmed Mars has rivers of water. (Hoagland was the first to announce that as well, and not just dry ice, but H20.)

There are other biggies but I won't get into them at this time. What happens is that in the competitive scientific arena people get envious of such things because only one man can declare a theory proven unless they work in a team, and Hoagland is simply getting it right time after time. That really pisses off NASA people and others who have created an imaginary self-appointed profession of oversight where every tidbit of information about space must be given the nod by their folks or else it becomes "faith healing" or "psychic phenomenon".

I think that true psychics are rare. I believe that psychics exist but will never expose themselves to the public because an atmosphere of hostility against psychic phenomenon has arisen in a variety of venues.

The same can be said for non-traditional scientists like Hoagland, who when he speaks about something it becomes information intended for a "mark". Again, the pictures I linked on this thread, minus the pictures of the entire planet Mars itself, had nothing to do with Hoagland whatsoever, and the only reason why Hoagland was brought up by me was in response to another forum member hammering him in this thread. I replied to that and then the logic that followed was "Gosh, Jedi is linking Hoagland pictures". Sorry and wrong. The pictures of the Roman chick that I linked came from a website and party completely different than Hoagland and had nothing to do with him.

That said, I am not blaming anyone for bringing Hoagland up. NASA'a response to Hoagland is to do exactly what you and others are doing--if a photograph, even photographs analyzed by NASA's own data feed, are shown without a NASA analysts signature block at the bottom they become "Hoagland pictures" lol, regardless of origin. The problem with that logic is that NASA doesn't corner the space market. There is no NASA space monopoly on space science. What it is then is growing pains where information flows about space can no longer be manipulated completely by NASA and it is annoying them to a degree.

But you know what? That is OK with me. I sort of like it that way. It will bring more attention to Hoagland's work. What needs to happen however, is that the dishonesty of claiming Hoagland's work or others is somehow connected to psychic phenonema has to end. Or that it is a con looking for a "mark". I freely peruse Hoaglands work and never paid a dime for it. Not one penny. Some of it is out there, while other parts of it are very intriguing to me. Just as some find it intriguing to entice people to come forward in competition over psyhic powers when they are not psychic to hammer the credibility (or lack thereof) of all psychic phenomenon. If we use your definition of "mark", everyone is a mark in millions of situations--all inescapable marks.

I haven't even posted my findings with the photo analysis of that site from JPL. I didn't even have time to get to it because of the Hoagland tangent. I do understand that to even mention it on the thread here will just bring out the worst in people who think they are skeptics. You know, skeptics of anything that they can't drive to on earth or see for themselves--that type of skepticism. It is sort of like a Jew trying to convince the Nazi SS that they are harmless humans. It just won't happen, no matter what level of information the Jew provides. So yes, I agree with you that even talking about anything having to do with structures on Mars built by humans of the past and other topics is a Star of David. It is a "mark". But that is fine because popularity is not important to me, just skepticsm and pursuit of the facts.

JK

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Look at a couple of things Hoagland has done confirmed years later by other scientific peers:

1) Confirmed the moon of Europa was covered in ice. (Hoagland was the first to publish about this).

2) Confirmed Mars has rivers of water. (Hoagland was the first to announce that as well, and not just dry ice, but H20.)
Wrong and wrong.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

Wrong and wrong.

Right and right again, commie.

JK

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Right and right again, commie.
You never even looked at that link, did you, fruitcake?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

You never even looked at that link, did you, fruitcake?

Eh, commie?

JK

[Aardvark_DK]

Sorry, that was uncalled for. I'll try again:

Did you take a look at the link?

[Crossbow]

Excuse me, but you all are just feeding the JK ego machine.

He is just trying to bait everyone with his stupid Mars talk because even he does not belive it.

On February 27, 2003 he wrote in response to someone asking how he could join JREF considering his view that modern humans originated from Mars, then came here thousands of years ago.

If you go to an elite college, your college mentors will have you write and think about things opposite your world-view. JREF is a critical-thinking skeptic organization. I think it makes people look at many institutions in the world in a skeptical way, not just religion and creation.

I am agnostic, that is why I poke fun at atheists. I say we came from Mars, because I believe we need to go there, and if there are anomolies there it will help pressure the effort for space-science.

Overall, the world needs more skepticism. It needs more educated people as skeptics. That is why I joined.

JK

Then about three hours later he wrote in response to someone pointing out his retraction of this Mars claim:

We will have to go to Mars to check it out. Did you see the pictures of the anomolies there?

The best part about it is...even if there isn't anything on Mars, then NASA can start going to other planets and check them out. Most people wouldn't really care about it, but more people would be willing to fork over their $$ to go to Mars if it was an Indiana Jones type-thing.

It's human progress, with consent. That is the perfect arrangement.

JK

In short, this is the sort of thing JK lives for.
He will claim that outlandish statements are facts.
When he is challenged, he will refuse to provide any facts and continue to maintain the fiction.
When he is challenged further, he will provide poor quality data and continue to maintain the fiction.
He will make frequent use of the terms communist, leftist, feminist, et al and continue to maintain the fiction.
Finally, when he has run out of ideas, he will repeat the above pattern in new threads.

Ugh!

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Look at a couple of things Hoagland has done confirmed years later by other scientific peers:

1) Confirmed the moon of Europa was covered in ice. (Hoagland was the first to publish about this).

********, an ocean under the ice of Europa was first proposed by John S. Lewis in 1971. look it up. Hoagland and his cronies have long spread the story that he was the first, once again he is a liar.


2) Confirmed Mars has rivers of water. (Hoagland was the first to announce that as well, and not just dry ice, but H20.)

site his announcement? Not just one of his many claims that he was the first to do something..... then give me 2 minutes to find earlier announcements...



There are other biggies but I won't get into them at this time.

No there are not....just more of the same...This guy makes Von Daniken look honest.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Crossbow
In short, this is the sort of thing JK lives for.
He will claim that outlandish statements are facts.
When he is challenged, he will refuse to provide any facts and continue to maintain the fiction.
When he is challenged further, he will provide poor quality data and continue to maintain the fiction.
He will make frequent use of the terms communist, leftist, feminist, et al and continue to maintain the fiction.
Finally, when he has run out of ideas, he will repeat the above pattern in new threads.And he makes love to billygoats, you forgot about that bit. :cool:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
And he makes love to billygoats, you forgot about that bit. :cool:
And you can't even call it "love". After he has satisfied his own hircine carnal cravings, he just walks away laughing, leaving the poor billygoat hurt, lonely and confused.

[Crossbow]

Wow!

JK does not take the billygoats out for breakfast the next morning?

How very rude.

:p

[whitefork]

That's pretty libelous. Don't you mean nannygoats?

[BillyJoe]

No, definitely, it was billygoats. :cool:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
No, definitely, it was billygoats. :cool:

I don't recall having sex with your mom. :rolleyes:

JK

[voidx]

I love the whole, "doesn't occur in nature" bit. Define nature please? Nature as it is observed on earth? Or the moon? How about Pluto? Oh right, we're talking about Mars. The Earth, and Mars are not exactly the same planet. Geological forces here would differ from those of Mars. Atmosphere, gravity, temperature, a zillion other definitions of what a planet is, they all differ to some degree. A geological formation that, SO FAR has not been observed on Earth, at least according to JK, does not preclude it from existing under the different conditions on Mars.

Besides, where are the pyramids? You think they'd have practiced them at home before they came and showed those dumb Egyptians how to make them :D.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by voidx
I love the whole, "doesn't occur in nature" bit. Define nature please? Nature as it is observed on earth? Or the moon? How about Pluto? Oh right, we're talking about Mars. The Earth, and Mars are not exactly the same planet. Geological forces here would differ from those of Mars. Atmosphere, gravity, temperature, a zillion other definitions of what a planet is, they all differ to some degree. A geological formation that, SO FAR has not been observed on Earth, at least according to JK, does not preclude it from existing under the different conditions on Mars.

Besides, where are the pyramids? You think they'd have practiced them at home before they came and showed those dumb Egyptians how to make them :D.

Symmetry doesn't occur in nature. Walls forming rectangles, perfect circular buildings with domes and other structures do not appear naturally on any planet, including Earth.

JK

[voidx]

Walls forming rectangles, perfect circular buildings with domes and other structures

Refer me to which of your attached photo's that depicts a wall please :D. Also, refer me to the perfect circular building also. I see a half circle, which might be close to symetrical, but which your photo's cannot prove. Pure 100% symmetry is perhaps impossible in nature. You cannot prove the 100% symmetry of anything in those photo's. It's possible that its a hill, or a rise that drops off into a cliff. Why jump to the conclusion its a building with a dome? Why accept it as proof? Its unusual perhaps, and yes they should look at it more. But a logical person goes, hmmm that's odd, lets try to get a closer look and see what it is. They do not go, Hey look, its a humanoid building with dome and rectangular walls, we need to get a closer look.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Symmetry doesn't occur in nature. Walls forming rectangles, perfect circular buildings with domes and other structures do not appear naturally on any planet, including Earth.

JK Wrong.

Symmetry occurs in nature all the time, from the shape of a snowflake to the colours of a butterfly to the great crystallic minerals.

Further, nature's forces sometimes create symmetry in a much larger scale - many volcanoes are quite symmetrical, and so are other rock formations:

http://ronemmons.com/travel/venezuela/2_302x207.jpg

Let me guess that if Hoagland had seen that structure on March, he would declare it to be most definately not natural - although nature alone made it here on Earth. :p

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Symmetry doesn't occur in nature. Walls forming rectangles, perfect circular buildings with domes and other structures do not appear naturally on any planet, including Earth.

JK
As a geologist, I can tell you that your statement is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.

Here's a photo of a natural formation I took when I was in California last summer. See if you can tell me how it was formed.

[Checkmite]

OOH...I KNOW!!!!!

....oh wait, done this one already... :D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
OOH...I KNOW!!!!!

....oh wait, done this one already... :D
Yeah, I know. I think in response to the same silly Jedi assertion. But put your hand down and give the newbies a chance.:D

[clk]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

The centripetal gravity formula I brought up was about programs to create ships in space that could be used to travel through space at great distances. It had nothing to do with calculating gravity....

This coming from a guy who doesn't even know what gravity is.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=9858&pagenumber=2

[voidx]

Ummm it was made my Martian Roman Chick Statues? No? Umm it was made by "not found in nature" forces? No? Damnit, this one is tough...oh of COURSE! This photo is not real, its a conspiracy by you leftist commie bastards!

[clk]

I'm going to show you guys my favorite Jedi Knight post, which shows he doesn't even know the very basics of physics. It was a post in which he replied to The Fool, who said:

Originally posted by The Fool

No Jedi, You should let go asking stupid questions. Do you understand that gravitational attraction is something that comes as part of a package deal with mass? If you and I were floating in deep space our bodies would be attracted to each other. (kind of creeps you out doesn't it) Because we are relatively low mass the gravitational atraction would be quite small. Now you answer me a question. What is different between mass in a star and mass in any other form, why would you think one (the star) generates a gravitational force and another not?????? Were you not paying attention in high school science?


And here's Jedi's brilliant response to him:

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Your body wouldn't be attracted to mine in zero gravity. What BS are you trying to throw around Fool! Our bodies may randomly run across each other if the body fluid eruptions propelled them on the same course after zero gravity death. But we would not create gravity to attract each other.

JK


Apparently, Jedi Knight doesn't realize that if he was right, then all of the physicists since Newton have been wrong. Are you claiming that they were wrong, JK? All of those formulas are just leftist propoganda, right?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Sure, straight lines appear individually. They rarely do not appear in groups of objects covering hundreds, if not thousands of acres that are three dimensional in construction.

...

Because they are humanoid. They are statues of humanoids, accompanied by buildings that humanoids have built all through known history. It is an incredible coincidence for it not to be of humanoid construction.

...

Hoagland has nothing to do with the images I posted showing the Roman chick statue.

...

JK


As an engineer this is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

How could anyone make a building that is to be used by humans which spans hundreds, or thousands of acres (which is many, many times larger than the largest building on Earth) without any excavation of building materials, or access roads, or power generation, or food and water supply, or waste disposal?

Apparently, these phenomenally large buildings just appear out of nowhere with no supporting communication and transportation infrastructure whatsoever. That would be a pretty neat trick all right (it sure would make zoning laws alot easier to deal with) but it cannot be done.

Also, the inhospitable Martian enviroment precludes extended humanoid populations unless there is a vast supporting infrastructure.

Ugh!

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow



As an engineer this is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

How could anyone make a building that is to be used by humans which spans hundreds, or thousands of acres (which is many, many times larger than the largest building on Earth) without any excavation of building materials, or access roads, or power generation, or food and water supply, or waste disposal?

Apparently, these phenomenally large buildings just appear out of nowhere with no supporting communication and transportation infrastructure whatsoever. That would be a pretty neat trick all right (it sure would make zoning laws alot easier to deal with) but it cannot be done.

Also, the inhospitable Martian enviroment precludes extended humanoid populations unless there is a vast supporting infrastructure.

Ugh!

Well gosh, the Great Pyramids weren't built from sand, were they? If the settlements around Giza disappeared, would the Great Pyramid be called a "force of nature"?

Nope. If man just stopped building things on Earth, it would only take nature 1,000 to nearly eliminate the presence of man from the planet. The only thing that would be left are structures like the Great Pyramid.

JK

[Bjorn]

What happened to the 'Symmetry doesn't occur in nature'?

Were you wrong on that one? :confused:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
What happened to the 'Symmetry doesn't occur in nature'?

Were you wrong on that one? :confused:

No, I wasn't wrong. Show me pictures of circular buildings with domes on them made by nature that cover hundreds, if not thousands of feet like this one:

http://www.marsearthconnection.com/images/e14ar2.jpg

I am not talking about a swatch of land that took water damage. I am talking about structures that are man-made. The "forces of nature" did not make that domed building.

JK

[clk]

Originally posted by Bjorn
What happened to the 'Symmetry doesn't occur in nature'?

Were you wrong on that one? :confused:

Silly Bjorn....Jedi Knight is never wrong.....you should have learned that by now. Whoever says that he is wrong is a leftist anti-American traitor.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by clk


Silly Bjorn....Jedi Knight is never wrong.....you should have learned that by now. Whoever says that he is wrong is a leftist anti-American traitor.

Not true. Calling me wrong when I am not wrong, however, is pretty underhanded.

JK

[clk]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No, I wasn't wrong.

Were you wrong about this: ?

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Your body wouldn't be attracted to mine in zero gravity.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well gosh, the Great Pyramids weren't built from sand, were they? If the settlements around Giza disappeared, would the Great Pyramid be called a "force of nature"?

Nope. If man just stopped building things on Earth, it would only take nature 1,000 to nearly eliminate the presence of man from the planet. The only thing that would be left are structures like the Great Pyramid.

JK

The pyramids were not built from sand, but if you take a look at Egypt sometime you will see the quarries that were used to obtain the building materials for tombs, temples, and other structures. Some of these quarries have not been active for centuries or millennia, but they are still quite visible.

There are similar cases elsewhere in the world.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by clk


Were you wrong about this: ?



No.

JK

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Sure, straight lines appear individually. They rarely do not appear in groups of objects covering hundreds, if not thousands of acres that are three dimensional in construction.

Actually, this is the result of a fairly common proccess known as Joint Block Separation (http://geography.sierra.cc.ca.us/booth/Physical/chp15_gradation/jointing.htm)

Expansion along natural fracture planes in rocks cause them to break off not only in straight, parallel lines, but often at fairly regular intervals. On Earth, the final geomorphology is often modified by the effects of wind and water, but on a dry, small atmosphere planet like Mars, you would expect that the joint blocks would remain more unmodified.

Sorry Jedi. Plain old geology (or Areology if you want to get technical). No aliens.
http://geography.sierra.cc.ca.us/booth/Physical/chp15_gradation/joint_block_and_granular.gif

[clk]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No.

JK

So basically, you're saying that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is wrong, huh?

F= G (m1 * m2)/(r^2) isn't correct?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No, I wasn't wrong. Show me pictures of circular buildings with domes on them made by nature that cover hundreds, if not thousands of feet like this one:

How about Stone Mountain Georgia
http://www.gpc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/myphotos/georgia/stnmtn.gif

It is what is called a granite exfoliation dome.

********
edited to add aerial photo:
http://www.ces.clemson.edu/semaps/ga/atla-d.jpg

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow


The pyramids were not built from sand, but if you take a look at Egypt sometime you will see the quarries that were used to obtain the building materials for tombs, temples, and other structures. Some of these quarries have not been active for centuries or millennia, but they are still quite visible.

There are similar cases elsewhere in the world.

As there are quarries on Mars that are still visible.

JK

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


As there are quarries on Mars that are still visible.

JK
Really? Do they look anything like this big quarry?
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/GC_Thumb.jpg

[voidx]

heh ok, the only way that photo looks like a domed building is if you pretend that photo is taken from a side view, rather from the top. Then the shadow looks like the base of a building, and the half circle looks like a dome. But it wasn't taken from the side, it was taken from the top, so are you saying that someone made a circular domed building, and then cut it in half and threw away the unwanted half? Where the hell would be the advantage in a building shaped this way? Maybe an extremist architectual group with insane building ideas took over and caused the downfall of our "anscestors" society :D. Maybe its a GIANT amphitheatre for the local martian Shakespeare troupe.

[whitefork]

Tricky, do you have an aerial photo of Halfdome handy?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by whitefork
Tricky, do you have an aerial photo of Halfdome handy?
Not aerial, but still pretty clear. This is in Yosemite National Park.

[whitefork]

I meant a view from above. But this makes an equally nice point which will be ignored as well. Thank you.

How do they get the sky so blue at Yosemite, anyway?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by whitefork
I meant a view from above. But this makes an equally nice point which will be ignored as well. Thank you.

How do they get the sky so blue at Yosemite, anyway?
They ban smoking. ;)

[voidx]

It's possible that its a hill, or a rise that drops off into a cliff.

said by me above. Thanks, that is exactly what I had in mind, just on a larger scale perhaps in the Mars example, or not, I have no idea what scale that Mars photo is supposedly too.

[Upchurch]

Pardon me for joining late.

So... if there is a connection between Bagdad and Mars and there is a connection between the "pyramid" on Mars and "Hyperdimensional Physics", does that mean that there is a connection between Bagdad and hyperdimensional physics? And if so, what?

[Wolverine]

... this means something...

[whitefork]

"Gonna build a mountain in my living room...."

[Wolverine]

:D

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by clk
So basically, you're saying that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is wrong, huh?
F= G (m1 * m2)/(r^2) isn't correct?
JK is incapable of being wrong. A bit like the pope. Although not quite.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wolverine
... this means something...

Hey, that may be what is making me think about Mars all the time. Maybe a UFO flew over me and scanned me with the red "genius" light that zapped the guy in Close Encounters.

JK

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey, that may be what is making me think about Mars all the time. Maybe a UFO flew over me and scanned me with the red "genius" light that zapped the guy in Close Encounters.

JK
LOL. The guy in Close Encounters didn't get turned into a genius. The aliens put him under mind control and forced him to think about the same thing over and over and over... You know, Jedi, maybe you did get zapped.:D

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tricky

LOL. The guy in Close Encounters didn't get turned into a genius. The aliens put him under mind control and forced him to think about the same thing over and over and over... You know, Jedi, maybe you did get zapped.:D

Then again, it could have happened when I climbed Mount Sinai as I walked past St. Catherines Monastary and walked the stone steps all the way to the top of that huge mountain.

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tricky

LOL. The guy in Close Encounters didn't get turned into a genius. The aliens put him under mind control and forced him to think about the same thing over and over and over... You know, Jedi, maybe you did get zapped.:D

The old "leftists are to blame for all our problems" ray? The variation on the "Jews are to blame for all our problems" ray?

[clk]

Originally posted by max
aRABS ARE AS THICK AS PIG **** AND THE SCUM OF THE EARTH

Ah...I see that max is hitting the wine again....

[clk]

I'm going to repeat my question for JK:
Are you saying that Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is wrong? If two bodies did not attract each other in space, then
F= G (m1 * m2)/(r^2) wouldn't be correct, right? Don't give me any crap about how Newton was right, but you are right too. Either Newton is right, and you're wrong, or you're right, and Newton is wrong.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by clk
I'm going to repeat my question for JK:
Are you saying that Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is wrong? If two bodies did not attract each other in space, then
F= G (m1 * m2)/(r^2) wouldn't be correct, right? Don't give me any crap about how Newton was right, but you are right too. Either Newton is right, and you're wrong, or you're right, and Newton is wrong.

I am right.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Human mass is so minimal that in zero gravity there would be no attraction.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Human mass is so minimal that in zero gravity there would be no attraction.

JK Jedi,

Last time you started on the gravity thing I warned you not to, or you would make a fool of yourself.

You didn't listen.
You made a fool of yourself.

Don't let anyone lead you into temptation again, ignore them! ;)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Jedi,

Last time you started on the gravity thing I warned you not to, or you would make a fool of yourself.

You didn't listen.
You made a fool of yourself.

Don't let anyone lead you into temptation again, ignore them! ;)

Bjorn, but I am right. If you guys want to go another 20 pages on this topic, fine.

JK

[clk]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am right.

JK

So Newton, Einstein, Sagan, Penrose, and Hawking were all wrong, and you're right?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by clk


So Newton, Einstein, Sagan, Penrose, and Hawking were all wrong, and you're right?

You aren't interpreting their work correctly.

JK

[clk]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You aren't interpreting their work correctly.

JK

Either Newton's Law of Gravitation is correct, or it isn't. You say that two bodies of mass in space don't attract each other. Newton's Law says otherwise. Now, either you're right, and Newton's wrong, or it's the other way around. You both cannot be correct.

What part of this equation do you not understand:
F= G (m1 * m2) / (r^2)

So tell me, are you right, and Newton is wrong, or is Newton right, and you are wrong?

[clk]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Jedi,

Last time you started on the gravity thing I warned you not to, or you would make a fool of yourself.

You didn't listen.
You made a fool of yourself.

Don't let anyone lead you into temptation again, ignore them! ;)

I'm having fun making a fool out of him, so don't try to ruin it :)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by clk

I'm having fun making a fool out of him :)
It's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but I confess to enjoying it from time to time.

So, Jedi. Looking at those pictures of natural geomorphologic features that I have been showing you, do you admit that these "shapes" could also arise naturally?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Bjorn, but I am right. If you guys want to go another 20 pages on this topic, fine.

JK We don't have to. :p

It's all here on this thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9858

Gravity starts at the bottom of page one.

If you could just proof read and confirm that the statements there are yours, you could make a fool of yourself a lot faster and save some bandwith. :)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by clk


Either Newton's Law of Gravitation is correct, or it isn't. You say that two bodies in space don't attract each other. Newton's Law says otherwise. Now, either you're right, and Newton's wrong, or it's the other way around. You both cannot be correct.

What part of this equation do you not understand:
F= G (m1 * m2) / (r^2)

So tell me, are you right, and Newton is wrong, or is Newton right, and you are wrong?

You are trying to slime you way out of this debate that has been raging for what, months, and I keep telling you it has nothing to do with Newton or the other brilliant people you are just "throwing out there" to try and disprove what I said.

I said that if you take two humans and put them in zero gravity they will not attract to each other in space.

I also said that if you roll two marbles down the street, they will not attract.

The reason is simple. Gravity is a weak force unless it involves large masses affecting each other. Two marbles will roll down a road without affecting each other. Two humans in open space in zero gravity will wave to each other, one going to the sun, the other heading past Pluto on the way out of the galaxy. They do not attract.

If humans attracted each other with gravity, we would be stuck together like peanut butter, wouldn't we?

How could children play marbles if the marbles affected each other? We are talking about minimal mass, not planets circling the sun.

JK

[clk]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I said that if you take two humans and put them in zero gravity they will not attract to each other in space.

I also said that if you roll two marbles down the street, they will not attract.


YES THEY WILL. Use the formula. The mass of one marble can be m1, and the mass of the second marble is m2. The distance between them is r.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

The reason is simple. Gravity is a weak force unless it involves large masses affecting each other. Two marbles will roll down a road without affecting each other. Two humans in open space in zero gravity will wave to each other, one going to the sun, the other heading past Pluto on the way out of the galaxy. They do not attract.


YES THEY DO. The attraction won't be noticeable, but it is still there. Every object with mass in the universe is attracted to every other object with mass in the universe.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

If humans attracted each other with gravity, we would be stuck together like peanut butter, wouldn't we?

How could children play marbles if the marbles affected each other? We are talking about minimal mass, not planets circling the sun.

JK

Who said that the attraction would be large?

[Bjorn]

Jedi, Jedi.

You haven't gone anywhere since you posted this, have you?

If our sun ceased to exist Bjorn, would Earth have gravity?And now:

I said that if you take two humans and put them in zero gravity they will not attract to each other in space. Does it strike you as strange that not one single forum poster agrees with you? Nor any scientist? :p

[clk]

Originally posted by Bjorn
We don't have to. :p

It's all here on this thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9858

Gravity starts at the bottom of page one.

If you could just proof read and confirm that the statements there are yours, you could make a fool of yourself a lot faster and save some bandwith. :)

I wish that I could've joined in on that thread at the beginning...I would have had fun. I bet you had a blast, huh?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by clk
Who said that the attraction would be large?

You did. That is precisely what you and others have said. You said two humans in space would attract each other, regardless of the distance between them and come together.

You also said that about the marbles.

I disagreed because humans and marbles have such a minor collective charge that they would never attract to each other with a gravitational force capable of bringing them together or affecting their movement, the primary claim I have made.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by clk


I wish that I could've joined in on that thread at the beginning...I would have had fun. I bet you had a blast, huh?

What, you are gloating about being wrong?

JK

[clk]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You did. That is precisely what you and others have said. You said two humans in space would attract each other, regardless of the distance between them and come together.

You also said that about the marbles.

I disagreed because humans and marbles have such a minor collective charge that they would never attract to each other with a gravitational force capable of bringing them together or affecting their movement, the primary claim I have made.

JK

Please cite a place where anyone stated that the attraction would be large. Nobody ever said that. You just assumed it. Just because the attraction is very small doesn't mean it's not there.

[Tricky]

{Entering teaching mode}

The gravitational force between two small objects is very small, so much so that the force from a nearby planet or star will completely overwhelm that tiny force, but it does not mean that that tiny force does not exist. Recall that gravity is the weakest of the four forces (a hand-held magnet can overcome the force of gravity on a metal washer lying on the ground. But that does not mean the gravity is not there, only that it is too small in comparison to the planet's gravity to be notice. If you put two marbles an inch apart in deep space (where the effect of other bodies was negligible), then they would slowly (remember, they are still small) be attracted to each other.

Now, to see if you have understood this physics lesson, I have a puzzle for you.

Suppose space were filled completely with a fluid, such as water or air. There are no stars, planets or any other bodies. The entire universe is filled with this fluid except for two bubbles which contain nothing (there is vaccuum inside the bubbles). Place the two bubbles one inch apart. Would the bubbles come closer together, separate further apart, or remain equidistant?

Show your reasoning.

[clk]

Tricky,

Are you assuming that the universe has the same properties as it does now? Also, is the fluid static?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by clk
Tricky,

Are you assuming that the universe has the same properties as it does now?
Yes

Originally posted by clk
Also, is the fluid static?
Let's call it a perfect fluid with no internal friction. It exhibits the same properties as any fluid would. If you exert force on it, it will be displaced.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by clk


Please cite a place where anyone stated that the attraction would be large. Nobody ever said that. You just assumed it. Just because the attraction is very small doesn't mean it's not there.

LOL, your nuts. Certifiable. You said the marbles would affect each other rolling down a 4 lane highway, one marble on opposite sides of the road. I said they didn't. I never said that the mass of the marbles don't emit a gravitational charge based upon their mass, but simply that the charge of the two marbles was a minimal mass that couldn't impact the movement of the other marble on the highway.

You said it did, homey.

JK

[clk]

Well, if the bubbles don't have a mass, then they will remain equidistant, otherwise, they will attract very slowly because of the gravitational force. Or atleast that's my guess :)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by clk
Well, if the bubbles don't have a mass, then they will remain equidistant, otherwise, they will attract very slowly because of the gravitational force. Or atleast that's my guess :)
You may be right. You may be wrong. I will withold the answer untill some others have a chance to show their reasoning. (Hint: That means you Jedi).

[clk]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


LOL, your nuts. Certifiable. You said the marbles would affect each other rolling down a 4 lane highway, one marble on opposite sides of the road. I said they didn't. I never said that the mass of the marbles don't emit a gravitational charge based upon their mass, but simply that the charge of the two marbles was a minimal mass that couldn't impact the movement of the other marble on the highway.

You said it did, homey.


When did I say that they would roll towards each other, or that the attraction would be evident? You said that there would be NO attraction, but you admitted to being wrong when you said:
"humans and marbles have such a minor collective charge that they would never attract to each other with a gravitational force capable of bringing them together or affecting their movement"

Before you said that, you had always said that there would be NO attraction. There is a difference between a very small attraction and no attraction at all.

Now, tell me what you meant when you said this:
"Gosh, my body, according to Bjorn, creates "gravity". I guess I can fly to Mars and walk around the surface of the planet without a spacesuit!"

You implied that it created NO gravity, as opposed to very little. And what did you mean about walking around in a spacesuit on Mars? What does that have to do with gravity?

[clk]

Originally posted by Tricky

You may be right. You may be wrong. I will withold the answer untill some others have a chance to show their reasoning. (Hint: That means you Jedi).

I think I'll clarify my reasoning....I don't think my answer was very clear. Since the bubbles are completely empty and have no mass, then they cannot have a magnetic or electric field. These are the only two other fields that I'm aware of that would cause two objects to attract (besides gravity, of course), and since the bubbles don't exhibit these fields, they will remain static.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


LOL, your nuts. Certifiable. You said the marbles would affect each other rolling down a 4 lane highway, one marble on opposite sides of the road. I said they didn't. I never said that the mass of the marbles don't emit a gravitational charge based upon their mass, but simply that the charge of the two marbles was a minimal mass that couldn't impact the movement of the other marble on the highway.

You said it did, homey.

JK Jedi, don't twist what you said when we all can read it still!

You persistently denied that two bodies 'floating in space' would attract each other or that they have/had gravity.

Bjorn, if you are floating in outer space, does your body weight matter? Does it? Does your body make gravity If I take the same marbles and send them into space and they pass each other, with their courses be affected? Absolutely not If you are sent into outer space without a space suit, does your body create "gravity" in zero gravity? Gosh, my body, according to Bjorn, creates "gravity". But we would not create gravity to attract each other.The list goes on.

Don't start cheating - I hate to call people liars. :p

[Tricky]

Originally posted by clk


I think I'll clarify my reasoning....I don't think my answer was very clear. Since the bubbles are completely empty and have no mass, then they cannot have a magnetic or electric field. These are the only two other fields that I'm aware of that would cause two objects to attract (besides gravity, of course), and since the bubbles don't exhibit these fields, they will remain static.
Okay, I should have said this. Consider gravity only. Ignore all other forces.

[clk]

Originally posted by Tricky

Okay, I should have said this. Consider gravity only. Ignore all other forces.

Ah....OK, I think I see what you're getting at. I'm going to put up another guess, if that's OK: Take the bubble on the left side. It has more mass on the left of it than on the right, because there is a vacuum on it's right side. So the mass to the left of it will be slightly more than the mass to its right. That means the gravitational force to the left will be slightly stronger that the force to the right. Therefore, the bubbles will separate.

[Aardvark_DK]

Ahhh, who could forget this classic by JK:
Gravity is created in the universe by stars and the motion of the planets orbiting stars. That is where gravity comes from.
And now he pretends that he always believed that everything creates gravity, the same way he started spelling "atheist" correctly without ever acknowledging he'd ever spelled it wrong (or is that "wrongly"? Doesn't seem right...). Oh, and the same way he went from claiming that 150 million people were killed in the Soviet Union under Stalin to claiming that, well, less were killed.

I've heard stories about JK admitting that he was wrong, but I've never actually seen it happening.

[Crossbow]

Hello all!

Here is something I posted a while back to show just the 'Jedi Think Tank' action (poor Yoda is rolling in his grave!).

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


If I rolled up all my threads into a ball it would be about the size of a walnut--3 times the size of your cranium lol.

JK

To: Jedi Knight

OK you imbecile, let us all sample your neurons in action.

The below are some of the things JK had to say about gravity and cosmology in another thread (in bold).

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=9858&pagenumber=2

Note: All of this just came from one page of an eight page thread. I do not know how, but he actually manages to make himself look even more stupid in the later pages, but it will serve the point just to show this one.

1) First item:

Bjorn, if you are floating in outer space, does your body weight matter? Does it? Does your body make gravity?

2) At this point, someone tried to tell JK to drop the topic since his rants were making him look silly. But of JK is just smart for that, so he responded thusly:

This is way too easy. Bjorn, if I roll a marble down a hill on one side of the road and roll another marble down the same hill at the same time on the other side of the road, do the marbles affect each other's mass?

Do the marbles emit "gravity" or does "gravity" rule the marbles?

If I take the same marbles and send them into space and they pass each other, with their courses be affected? Absolutely not.

If you took physics, I am laughing at you thinking you learned something.

Let me teach you some things about Physics, Bjorn. If you take your "body" and put it on Pluto, would it "weigh" the same?

Just have to love atheist "mysticism" lol. Your "body weight" comes from something Bjorn, and it is not your body. That is the whole point of what I am talking about.

I will say it again since everyone is ignoring it either because they don't understand it or fear trying to reply to it:

The Big Bang is so much pseudo-science that I can hammer the theory in one simple post.

Does "space" have mass? Does it? We know "gravity" is generated by stars--does "space" generate gravity?

If I have two particles (The Big Bang Theory) of opposites and they connect and create a "universe", what was the "gravity effect" that brought those particles together to start it all? Was there a sun? There couldn't be because that is "something from nothing" (spontaneous generation mystical science).

Take it a step further--let's say that the two particles did "mystically" start the big bang. Let's also say that those two particles inhabited 1 cubic meter of space. Where did that cubic meter come from? Since there was no gravity, how did the particles meet? Did the two particles float in the cubic meter of space and eventually wander into each other causing this massive release of energy that created the universe?

How much "space" existed to allow the two particles to "mystically exist"? Given the size of the universe, the two particles must have originated in the same area of space, a very limited area, potentially a microscopic area.

Now, if any of this is true, that means that the "explosion" that started the universe started from a centralized location--a focal point. Where is this focal point (starting point)?

The universe is trillions of years old. But I bet The Big Bang Theory makes it easier not to think about it lol. Kind of like psychic dowsing.

Simple question--where did the "space" come from that allowed the two "particles" to exist to "create" the universe?

JK

3) He was again warned of what he silly he was looking and that he should let the issue go. So what did JK do, he wrote this:

Let what go--the scientific mysticism I am reading from Bjorn?

Let me ask you a simple question, Fool. If you are sent into outer space without a space suit, does your body create "gravity" in zero gravity?

Or does it...come apart?

JK

and this:

Gosh, my body, according to Bjorn, creates "gravity". I guess I can fly to Mars and walk around the surface of the planet without a spacesuit!

JK

4) Someone tried to explain to him that gravity is always formed by any object with mass, and that if two bodies with mass are placed near one another, then they will be drawn together. Did he listen? Nope, he wrote:

Your body wouldn't be attracted to mine in zero gravity. What BS are you trying to throw around Fool! Our bodies may randomly run across each other if the body fluid eruptions propelled them on the same course after zero gravity death. But we would not create gravity to attract each other.

JK

5) Here is my favorite, it is where JK floats his idea that gravity is created by stars and the motions of planets.

The marbles didn't affect each other. I could roll one marble down one side of the road and it would behave the exact same way as if I rolled one down the other side of the road. The "marbles" obey the laws of physics. They do not create gravity. Gravity governs the marble. Anything with mass obeys gravity. Gravity is created in the universe by stars and the motion of the planets orbiting stars. That is where gravity comes from.

Now, explain to me how my body is going to create gravity so I can go to mars without a space suit and walk on the planet without one.

JK

6) Once again, people tried to explain to him how gravity is actually generated, and did he listen. Nope! He just wrote:

Sure Bjorn, and if I roll a marble down the highway in California in will affect the one I roll down the highway in Florida, won't it?

This is the best comedy I have read by Bjorn in a very long time.

JK

And he wrote this as well:

Gosh, so you are saying that if your body is floating near Saturn it will attract mine floating near Mars.

Jesus this is the most hilarious crap I have ever heard.

Gravity is "weight", right Fool? Your body "creates" weight in space (creates gravity)?

Better pass the pipe to Bjorn lol. This is hilarious!!!!!!!

JK

And this:

The marbles don't affect each other Bjorn. They obey, they do not order.

JK

And by this time, he started to think that people were telling him that humans are the source of gravity.

Oh I get it. The universe revolves around humans because of all the "gravity" we create LOL. How stupid of me.

JK

Once again, that thought that humans create all the gravity.

Yep, the universe revolves around humans lol. Why didn't I see it before.

Absolutely hilarious.

JK

Still hung up on that humans and gravity thing in spite of the numerous attempts to correct him.

OK Bjorn, humans create gravity and that holds the universe together--just like you said lol.

JK

As dense as ever.

No way am I going to let you get away with the nonsense you are spouting Bjorn. You said humans "create gravity". Humans have gravity because of our mass but we do not "create" gravity. We do not generate gravity.

But I like your theory about humans being the center of the universe--it fits with the atheist religion.

JK

Density still increasing.

Yep, that is what you said. You said humans create gravity Bjorn and your pal Fool piled on in support of you. This is going to be hilarious by the time I am done with you.

Bjorn, you took Physics, right? At least you claim that you have.

Anyway, what is gravity? Gravity is "true weight".

Again, if I take a human and put them into zero gravity, will the human generate gravity? You and Fool claim that humans do. I say that they do not. Since zero gravity reduces human weight, how can a human "generate" gravity in zero gravity?

Come on Bjorn genius. Come on smart guy. Explain it to me.

JK

7) Now we start to see his vaunted math skills at work:

Bjorn, you said humans "create gravity". If that is true, why do humans need this:

Ac = V'2/R

Why do humans need that Bjorn if humans "create gravity" in zero gravity?

Class is in session.

JK

And this page finished up with this tidbit of mathematical wisdom as well.

Bjorn, if humans create gravity, why is this [When ac = g then Fc = w] important?

Class is in session.

JK

[MRC_Hans]

Yah, I actually saved that sequence, just in case something "happened" to it...

Its not nice to bring it all up again, but...... I sorta feel JK asks for this. Possibly, he thrives on it, in fact.

I also like this htread. I really tried hard to see ANYTHING in those pictures, especially the "chick statue", but I just cant make out anything. For all I know those pics could be closeups of my basement wall.

Hans :rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
For all I know those pics could be closeups of my basement wall.

You are ICanTakePicturesOfDemons' sockpuppet???!!!:eek: :eek:

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Tricky
[BSuppose space were filled completely with a fluid, such as water or air. There are no stars, planets or any other bodies. The entire universe is filled with this fluid except for two bubbles which contain nothing (there is vaccuum inside the bubbles). Place the two bubbles one inch apart. Would the bubbles come closer together, separate further apart, or remain equidistant?

Show your reasoning. [/B]

Can I try?

All the fluid molecules exert a gravitational attraction, so they are attracted to each other and will "try" to flow toward the center of mass, i.e. the center of the universe (assuming the universe is spherical and not infinite or some incomprehensible multidimensional shape; I'm not really up on current thinking here). Since the so-called "bubbles" are really just holes, they will be filled and will vanish.

However, the fact that the bubbles existed in the first place means that there was insufficient fluid to completely fill the universe in the liquid phase. So new "holes" will form as far as possible from the center of mass. In the case of a spherical universe, this would be all around the perimeter of a sphere of fluid. (edited to add, I mean a space all around the sphere, not lots of little bubbles). But the holes (or hole) would not be vacuum because the fluid will vaporize until the gas exerts enough pressure to balance the vapor pressure of the liquid.

All this brings back memories...when I was about 12 my grammar school was given the loan of a "computer" for a week. It was about the size of a suitcase, had a keypad and a rotating-number display, and could (gasp!) add, subtract, multiply, and divide. After a couple of days' work I managed to write a program to solve the gravitational equation for objects of various masses. It's not exactly a complicated concept...

Afterthought: I just realized you mention that the fluid can be a gas, where I was assuming it was a liquid. Will have to think about that case some more. Will the whole fluid simply reduce its density and fill any gaps, or will there be a region of greater density in the middle??

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wayrad


Can I try?

All the fluid molecules exert a gravitational attraction, so they are attracted to each other and will "try" to flow toward the center of mass, i.e. the center of the universe (assuming the universe is spherical and not infinite or some incomprehensible multidimensional shape; I'm not really up on current thinking here). Since the so-called "bubbles" are really just holes, they will be filled and will vanish.

However, the fact that the bubbles existed in the first place means that there was insufficient fluid to completely fill the universe in the liquid phase. So new "holes" will form as far as possible from the center of mass. In the case of a spherical universe, this would be all around the perimeter of a sphere of fluid. (edited to add, I mean a space all around the sphere, not lots of little bubbles). But the holes (or hole) would not be vacuum because the fluid will vaporize until the gas exerts enough pressure to balance the vapor pressure of the liquid.

Of course there are any number of reasons why this scenario is imposible, including that "the vacuum would be filled", "the bubble membranes would have to be made of something" etc. I was specifically searching for the gravitational effects of the molecules on each other, as this was inspired by Jedi's misunderstanding of how gravity works. Ignore other forces like pressure, charge, brownian motion etc.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by wayrad

Afterthought: I just realized you mention that the fluid can be a gas, where I was assuming it was a liquid. Will have to think about that case some more. Will the whole fluid simply reduce its density and fill any gaps, or will there be a region of greater density in the middle??

OK, I'll go with the latter - more density in the middle. Otherwise all gases would just vanish into space, the atmosphere would have the same density throughout, and so on.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Tricky

Of course there are any number of reasons why this scenario is imposible, including that "the vacuum would be filled", "the bubble membranes would have to be made of something" etc. I was specifically searching for the gravitational effects of the molecules on each other, as this was inspired by Jedi's misunderstanding of how gravity works. Ignore other forces like pressure, charge, brownian motion etc.

Ah, I see, well if we postulate an Invisible Force Field to keep the bubbles in existence, of course they will be driven to the perimeter.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wayrad


OK, I'll go with the latter - more density in the middle. Otherwise all gases would just vanish into space, the atmosphere would have the same density throughout, and so on.
You're overthinking. Consider only the gravitational effects of the molecules of the fluid on the surrounding molecules. Assume the fluid is perfect (i.e. no internal friction, no interaction between molecules other than gravity). Also assume that the extent of the fluid is infinite.

[whitefork]

Nice question. I guess that the bubbles will move apart because the gravitational attraction between the components of the fluid will be weaker on opposite sides of the bubbles, stronger in areas where there are no voids.

So if you draw 2 circles, the matter in the space where they're closest together should have more collective attraction than the points on their surfaces where they're farthest apart. In effect, they'd float away from one another.

I lack the technical vocabulary to express this clearly.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Tricky

You're overthinking. Consider only the gravitational effects of the molecules of the fluid on the surrounding molecules. Assume the fluid is perfect (i.e. no internal friction, no interaction between molecules other than gravity). Also assume that the extent of the fluid is infinite.

Oh, an infinite universe - I had explicitly excluded that, now let's see... There is no center of mass, but each bubble will experience less gravitational attraction from the direction of the other, so they should move apart.

I think that's right, but on the other hand, if the universe is infinite, there is infinite gravitational attraction from ALL sides, right? It's been a long time since I took math, so I am not sure if infinity minus x is less than infinity or not. If it is, the bubbles move apart; if not, they stay put.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I never said that the mass of the marbles don't emit a gravitational charge based upon their mass, That's a good thing, because anyone who does talk about a gravitational "charge" has been watching too much science fiction. but simply that the charge of the two marbles was a minimal mass that couldn't impact the movement of the other marble on the highway. oh. "Jedi Knight" Right.

Nevermind.


Incidently, good use of adding conditions to change the argument. First, it was that marbles wouldn't attract each other. Then, it was that marbles rolling down a hill wouldn't attract each other. Then it was that marbles rolling down a highway with implied friction a good distance apart would be over come with other forces that the gravitational attraction would be negligable. You've managed to turn the argument all the way around. Well done.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by whitefork
Nice question. I guess that the bubbles will move apart because the gravitational attraction between the components of the fluid will be weaker on opposite sides of the bubbles, stronger in areas where there are no voids.

So if you draw 2 circles, the matter in the space where they're closest together should have more collective attraction than the points on their surfaces where they're farthest apart. In effect, they'd float away from one another.

I lack the technical vocabulary to express this clearly.
Ah, so close, but not quite right.

Perhaps I should move this to the "Puzzles" section.

You're still a little off too, Wayrad.
(Meant as a comment on your solution to the puzzle, not a general comment on your mental condition:D)

[wayrad]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tricky
[B]
Ah, so close, but not quite right.

Perhaps I should move this to the "Puzzles" section.

You're still a little off too, Wayrad.
(
I certainly was - did I actually refer to the bubbles experiencing gravitational attraction? Naah, it was an imposter:D Of course I meant the fluid molecules. Obviously I need to take a break from this. I'm supposed to be working, after all...

[wayrad]

I can't stay away...

Don't tell me the two bubbles COME TOGETHER??? After all, the least gravitational attraction is experienced by molecules in between them, so that is where the fluid doesn't "want" to be...
Sorry, that's not clear. Let me think about it some more.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by corplinx
http://www.skepticalmind.com/hoagland.html

Jedi, please start with this link and find your way to seeing the real truth about Hoagland. He may be no better than faith healer selling his books and tapes to the marks.

Don't feel bad, I bought a 2000 Jetta VR6 and found out the hard way that German quality is an oxymoron. All of us are a mark at least some of the time.

He corplinx, Don't make the mistake of equating Jetta = German... they don't even have Jettas here anymore...

[voidx]

Sigh. This is becoming my largest pet peeve with this forum. If in the past you have stated something that you believe is right. And later change your position on it, then just state very clearly that you now believe this and admit also that you were perhaps wrong about your previous belief, or at least that you've alterred your original belief. For example, JK earlier stated from this thread and others that there would be no gravitational attraction between your bodies in a vacuum, or marbles rolling down a hill. He has since then changed and stated that there would be an attraction, but it would be so weak that it would not be noticable. This seems to be the general consensus of everyone else. So say it with me, "let's all agree that there is an attraction between the different mass', but that it will be very weak.". As for the origin of gravity I can only roll my eyes.

It drives me nuts, people start an arguement about something, during the course, someone switches or adjusts their belief, however, they will not admit that in so doing, their originial belief might have to be alterred in some manner. They steadfastly stick to their new idea, while the person arguing with them begins a campaign of quotes and other thread references in order to prove that, this is what you're original belief was, yes or no, yes or no, yes or no. For some reason people have the inability to say yes or no on here anymore, so they simply keep repeating their new alterred belief, without ever giving a simple yes or no answer to, this is your original statement correct? All you have to say here is, yes, that was my original statement, but I admit to having changed it since then, and this is now what I believe. Its funny in a horribly annoying kind of way, because you both end up stating the same thing, and in essence agreeing, but you never see it because your waging your quote, thread reference war, to clarify what the original belief was, and since no one is able to say yes or no, it goes on and on and on.

Now I admit there's some pretty damn kooky people on here, and there's also plenty of people that seem to never want to be seen giving a retraction of a previously stated opinion, or just don't like to be proved wrong. But honestly, how long can you sit there flogging that dead horse before everyone else gets pissed off watching you flog away?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Ah, but the problem with your thesis is that those photos were taken at the 1.5 - 2.0 meter parameter. They weren't taken via a microscope.

If you take a picture of a skyscaper, is it an orange or a skyscraper?

JK

Hey JK,...have you been stealing into ICANTAKEPICTURESOFDEMONS's basement and taking pictures of his wall again!?? :D :D

This 5hit is hilarious! :D :D

-z

[wayrad]

Originally posted by wayrad
I can't stay away...

Don't tell me the two bubbles COME TOGETHER??? After all, the least gravitational attraction is experienced by molecules in between them, so that is where the fluid doesn't "want" to be...
Sorry, that's not clear. Let me think about it some more.
That's it, isn't it? Each molecule is attracted by all the other molecules, to a degree proportional to their mass and distance. A molecule that is some distance from both bubbles will experience the most attraction from the direction away from both, since there are fewer molecules in the direction the bubbles are in. (The difference may be very small because of the distances involved and the small size of the molecules, but will never be zero.) A molecule that is "sort of " between the bubbles will also be pulled away from the centerline between them. The only way a molecule could NOT experience an asymmetrical gravitational force is if it were exactly at the midpoint of the centerline between the bubbles (assuming they are of equal size). However, I don't think any molecule would stay in this position long because the bubbles would be getting pushed together as the rest of the fluid moved.

(This is assuming that the force is NOT in equal in all directions due to their being an infinite number of molecules in an infinite universe...does anybody know if infinity minus x is less than infinity?)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Hey JK,...have you been stealing into ICANTAKEPICTURESOFDEMONS's basement and taking pictures of his wall again!?? :D :D

This 5hit is hilarious! :D :D

-z

lol

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Yah, I actually saved that sequence, just in case something "happened" to it...

Its not nice to bring it all up again, but...... I sorta feel JK asks for this. Possibly, he thrives on it, in fact.

I also like this htread. I really tried hard to see ANYTHING in those pictures, especially the "chick statue", but I just cant make out anything. For all I know those pics could be closeups of my basement wall.

Hans :rolleyes:

Oh, but Hans, the chick statue is one of the most important finds on the surface of Mars, besides the Mars Face and Cydonia by the most important cosmologist ever, Richard Hoagland.

Now, check this out:

http://www.marsearthconnection.com/images/e14ar2y.jpg

Look at the top right photograph. In that photo above the red circle is the face of a roman chick. Look more carefully and you can see that she is a statue of some type, holding what appears to be a staff in her hand.

It is simply remarkable, and we have to give NASA $billions to make a ship to go check this place on Mars out.

JK

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wayrad

That's it, isn't it? Each molecule is attracted by all the other molecules, to a degree proportional to their mass and distance. A molecule that is some distance from both bubbles will experience the most attraction from the direction away from both, since there are fewer molecules in the direction the bubbles are in. (The difference may be very small because of the distances involved and the small size of the molecules, but will never be zero.) A molecule that is "sort of " between the bubbles will also be pulled away from the centerline between them. The only way a molecule could NOT experience an asymmetrical gravitational force is if it were exactly at the midpoint of the centerline between the bubbles (assuming they are of equal size). However, I don't think any molecule would stay in this position long because the bubbles would be getting pushed together as the rest of the fluid moved.

(This is assuming that the force is NOT in equal in all directions due to their being an infinite number of molecules in an infinite universe...does anybody know if infinity minus x is less than infinity?)
We have a winner!!!:cool:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Look at the top right photograph. In that photo above the red circle is the face of a roman chick. Look more carefully and you can see that she is a statue of some type, holding what appears to be a staff in her hand.
Though I am not a trained Areologist, I have worked with aerial photos a good bit, and this would be my brief interpretation of the "face".

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tricky

Though I am not a trained Areologist, I have worked with aerial photos a good bit, and this would be my brief interpretation of the "face".

That is just the head of a statue, Tricky, perhaps the same size as any other human head. A meteor impact in the eyes of the statue's head would cause the entire site to be destroyed.

Since the site exists, it is obvious that it has not suffered any meteorite damage.

JK

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That is just the head of a statue, Tricky, perhaps the same size as any other human head. A meteor impact in the eyes of the statue's head would cause the entire site to be destroyed.

Since the site exists, it is obvious that it has not suffered any meteorite damage.

JK
What site? I see what look like geologic features. Where is the scale on these photos, by the way? How big is this statue? If these are air photos, then t must be lying on the ground, since an air photo of a statue would get only the top view, not the face. If they are not air photos, where is the horizon in the pictures? Did a meteor knock the statue over? :D

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tricky

What site? I see what look like geologic features. Where is the scale on these photos, by the way? How big is this statue? If these are air photos, then t must be lying on the ground, since an air photo of a statue would get only the top view, not the face. If they are not air photos, where is the horizon in the pictures? Did a meteor knock the statue over? :D

It is to the same scale that any other memorial would be on Earth. Humans, regardless of what planet they are on, seem to build buildings to common scale.

JK

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Look at the top right photograph. In that photo above the red circle is the face of a roman chick. Look more carefully and you can see that she is a statue of some type, holding what appears to be a staff in her hand.
Hey, is this one of them 3d pictures where you sort of have to squint and focus way off into the distance?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

Hey, is this one of them 3d pictures where you sort of have to squint and focus way off into the distance?

Depends if you need glasses or not.

JK

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That is just the head of a statue, Tricky, perhaps the same size as any other human head. A meteor impact in the eyes of the statue's head would cause the entire site to be destroyed.

Since the site exists, it is obvious that it has not suffered any meteorite damage.

JK

Hey, wait a minute...there's one of them there faces on the moon too!!!!! Since it too must be life size (after all, it looks like a face and we all know how big a face is) this makes the moon HOW big and HOW close? Quick, where's my calculator?

Edited to add: Of course in some cultures it is not a face but a rabbit or some such. This will affect the size and distance estimates slightly.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


It is to the same scale that any other memorial would be on Earth. Humans, regardless of what planet they are on, seem to build buildings to common scale.

JK
That is among your most silly statements. Compare Michelangelo's David with the Statue of Liberty. Are they on a "common" scale?

But of course, what I meant was, where are the markings on the picture to indicate a length. As an amateur photographer, I know when shooting close-ups to include an item, such as a coin, to let the viewer know how big the object is. Normally maps and air-photos have a scale bar with inches, feet, meters, miles, or some standard distance marked on it. These photos look like they are at least several hundred feet across, but without a scale bar, how can you tell?

Tell me, Jedi. How big do you think This statue is?
http://walker-tx.tamu.edu/Images/Big%20Sam%202.jpg

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Tricky


Tell me, Jedi. How big do you think This statue is?
http://walker-tx.tamu.edu/Images/Big%20Sam%202.jpg

Hey!!! Its Sammy!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by voidx
Now I admit there's some pretty damn kooky people on here, and there's also plenty of people that seem to never want to be seen giving a retraction of a previously stated opinion, or just don't like to be proved wrong. But honestly, how long can you sit there flogging that dead horse before everyone else gets pissed off watching you flog away? That is a damn good question, JK and I went 20+ pages once. I wear it as a badge of pride but I guess I should see it more as an embarrassment.

Who is more the fool, the fool or the one arguing with the fool?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tricky
Tell me, Jedi. How big do you think This statue is?
http://walker-tx.tamu.edu/Images/Big%20Sam%202.jpg

Hey, that is a nice looking statue. It is almost as nice looking as the ones on Mars at the site I showed you the photos of.

JK

[clk]

Originally posted by Tricky


Tell me, Jedi. How big do you think This statue is?
http://walker-tx.tamu.edu/Images/Big%20Sam%202.jpg

I know what statue it is, and approximately how large it is :D
Sad thing is, it took me a while to figure it out, even though I drive by it once every two months or so.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey, that is a nice looking statue. It is almost as nice looking as the ones on Mars at the site I showed you the photos of.

JK
Ah. I get it now. This is your idea of a little joke. Well, I admit, you got me. Until now I thought you were serious about the statues on Mars thing. You just went a little too far over the top and blew your cover.

Very good Jedi. I am glad you are so good at keeping us amused.:D

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Hey, that is a nice looking statue. It is almost as nice looking as the ones on Mars at the site I showed you the photos of.

JK Your not getting this are you tricky? :D

Trust me, I uderstand. I support you 100%. If you should get lucky in getting your desired results please let me know.

This reminds me, what ever happened to ICAN?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by clk


I know what statue it is, and approximately how large it is :D
Sad thing is, it took me a while to figure it out, even though I drive by it once every two months or so.
That's why it is important to put something in your photo for scale.
http://www.photohouston.com/Texas_symbols/E7-129_Sam_Houston.jpg
(since I realize now that Jedi is just joking, I can show the answer).

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Tricky

That's why it is important to put something in your photo for scale.

(since I realize now that Jedi is just joking, I can show the answer).

And it's 67 feet high, according to the info I found via Google (NightG1's comment was kind of a giveaway).

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

Wrong and wrong.

Jesus, I am so right.

Richard Hoagland was first (http://archive.abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/europa0121/) to publish that Europa was covered in ice and held vast amounts of water.

Gosh, that means he is the man and will always be named for the discovery. :D

You were wrong Aardvark. I was right, but then again, I knew that before I even mentioned Hoagland.

JK

[corplinx]

From the coasttocoastam web site:

Mars & Baghdad
Richard C. Hoagland (enterprisemission) returned to Coast this Thursday night drawing comparisons between parts of Baghdad and the planet Mars. He pointed out that recent satellite photographs taken of Baghdad show the same tetrahedral geometry that he has found in abundance in Cydonia.

Hoagland believes that this indicates Saddam had an awareness of a connection to ancient Gods, (actually visitors from Mars), who helped found ancient civilizations on Earth. If Saddam possesses secret knowledge, then perhaps "this was a sham war; it wasn't for real. Because he was our guy to begin with, we bought and paid for him," Hoagland said.

"It's all part of the symbolic calendar running up to the year of Mars," he continued, adding that a soldier had recently been televised hanging an American flag in Baghdad upside down. Hoagland said this was generally done as a distress signal and he wondered what this dire message could be portending.


I bet Hoagland has one of those clocks that when the hour turns has a bird pop out and say "woo woo, woo woo".

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Jesus, I am so right.

Richard Hoagland was first (http://archive.abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/europa0121/) to publish that Europa was covered in ice and held vast amounts of water.

Gosh, that means he is the man and will always be named for the discovery. :D

You were wrong Aardvark. I was right, but then again, I knew that before I even mentioned Hoagland.

JK
oops...
from your article....

"Science writer Richard Hoagland first suggested the idea of oceans on Europa and life within them in a 1979 Sky and Telescope article"

well jk, as it turns out that an ocean under the ice of Europa was first proposed by John S. Lewis in 1971.

from http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/EuropaFax.html

In the 1950s, the astronomer G.P.Kuiper discovered evidence that the surface of Europa and some of the other satellites of Jupiter seemed to be covered with water in the form of ice or frost. This was finally confirmed in the early 1970s. In an article published in 1971, John S. Lewis proposed and studied the possibility that Europa and other ice-covered bodies in our solar system might actually have a liquid water ocean under a crust of ice. This idea was explored in a number of articles by various scientists during the 1970s. One important one which appeared in 1976 by John S. Lewis and G.J.Consolmagno gives rather detailed estimates of the possible thickness of the ice crust and the possible depth of an ocean that might exist on Europa and other moons of Jupiter. These estimates are based on various sets of assumptions about the early history and the composition of those bodies. For example, in one of their models, they estimate that Europa might have an ice crust 70-km thick covering an ocean of water 100-km deep, all of this over a rocky core 1400-km in radius. The underlying idea is that radioactive decay in the core might produce enough heat to maintain a liquid water ocean.


Jedi there seems to be 2 possibilities here. Either all these people travelled forward in time and stole Hoaglands original work, then travelled backwards in time to publish it.....OR.....Hoagland is lying and gullible people who buy his books (you) have swallowed the story and help him perpetuate it.....which is it?

Can you force yourself to ignore all this published work in order to hold onto this lie?

Hoagland...the Eric Von Daniken of the next century....Lol. He's laughing all the way to the bank with YOUR money.

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
You were wrong Aardvark. I was right, but then again, I knew that before I even mentioned Hoagland.
Of course you did - you're a selfproclaimed genius. But I'm geniuser than you! Nyah nyah nyah! And my dad can beat up your dad.

I was going to write a proper reply but The Fool beat me to it. Damn you, Fool, you win this time! (http://www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/bull.htm)

[whitefork]

I got to thinking about the possibilities of a universe where the relative vacuum of our space is replaced by some kind of plenum, and the relatively rigid bodies of our planets and stars are replaced by voids.

In this case, as Wayrad has described, two voids separated by some distance will approach one another on account of the gravitational forces between the particles of the plenum (I'm thinking of this plenum as some analog of the old ether).

Now my question: do the void-bodies obey something like our laws of universal gravitation under these conditions? Would two or more be able to form some kind of orbital system, for example?
(making the necessary assumptions about the nature of the ether with regard to resistance, etc).

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Jesus, I am so right.

Richard Hoagland was first (http://archive.abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/europa0121/) to publish that Europa was covered in ice and held vast amounts of water.

Gosh, that means he is the man and will always be named for the discovery. :D

You were wrong Aardvark. I was right, but then again, I knew that before I even mentioned Hoagland.

JK

It takes more than facts, logic, and the truth to get through the Jedi Sheild Generator.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Crossbow


It takes more than facts, logic, and the truth to get through the Jedi Sheild Generator.
Oh, I don't know about that. It's worked before (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11035&perpage=40&pagenumber=4).

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Oh, I don't know about that. It's worked before (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11035&perpage=40&pagenumber=4).

I do not follow.

Just what is it you are referring to in the aforementioned thread Upchurch?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Crossbow


I do not follow.

Just what is it you are referring to in the aforementioned thread Upchurch? The page I linked to demonstrates where a logical counter argument was presented to Jedi after which he pretty much abandoned the R&P thread with a vague promise to answer the counter argument "tomorrow". If that doesn't demonstrate that logic can occasionally break through the Jedi Shield Generator, I don't know what does.

That's all I'm saying.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The page I linked to demonstrates where a logical counter argument was presented to Jedi after which he pretty much abandoned the R&P thread with a vague promise to answer the counter argument "tomorrow". If that doesn't demonstrate that logic can occasionally break through the Jedi Shield Generator, I don't know what does.

That's all I'm saying.

I covered all the bases in that thread several times. How many times do I have to keep repeating myself in a thread before you get it? All you had to do was be honest and say you disagreed with my opinion, but you simply couldn't do it. I didn't ask you to agree, but your public education must have conditioned you to not even acknowledge disagreement. That is common in leftism which always leads to group totalitarian permissions. The left doesn't like it when minions don't toe the party line.

JK

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
How many times do I have to keep repeating myself in a thread before you get it
Well, that's kinda the problem, Jedi. Repeating the same debunked arguments won't help anybody "get it". You have to respond to the points raised. For example, you said that the domes on Mars couldn't be natural features. I showed you pictures of natural domes on Earth. You never responded to that. I showed you an interpretation of how your "statue" could be explained by metorite impacts (well known on Mars) and you countered by saying, "No, it is a statue" (somewhat less well known on Mars).

If repeating silliness made one smart, then you would indeed be the genius you imagine yourself to be. And if a frog had wings...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I covered all the bases in that thread several times. How many times do I have to keep repeating myself in a thread before you get it?I just went back over and reviewed the thread, JK, and I still see no response. Care to join me over there to continue the discussion? I have no intention of hijacking this thread when another one exists on thetopic.
All you had to do was be honest and say you disagreed with my opinion, but you simply couldn't do it. I didn't ask you to agree, but your public education must have conditioned you to not even acknowledge disagreement.To the contrary, you challenged:

"If you go back to the page I linked that shows the specific design and mathematical properties of the D&M, what is there left to debate? Are you still trying to say that the D&M is not the shape that those scientists worked hundreds of hours on with that formula page?"

I then went through the page and showed that the analysis is far from conclusive and higly dependent on some big assumptions. But, again, I will be happy to discuss it with you over there, if you see some flaws in my analysis.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The page I linked to demonstrates where a logical counter argument was presented to Jedi after which he pretty much abandoned the R&P thread with a vague promise to answer the counter argument "tomorrow". If that doesn't demonstrate that logic can occasionally break through the Jedi Shield Generator, I don't know what does.

That's all I'm saying.

OK then, but I would have to say that exchange argues against your point.

If one tries to point out facts, logic, and truth to JK,
Then JK changes the subject, obfuscates, and refuses to retort.
Note that the thread you referred to was full of images, drawings, and details that could be readily checked against other impartial sources.
Did JK attempt to do any of this checking on his own?
Judging by his repsonses, I would say no he did not do so.

In other words, the Jedi Knight Sheild Generator remains in full operation.

This thread too provides an excellent example of it at work where JK is constantly reporting his opinions as facts,
and when others counter his facts with actual facts JK gets angry because they do not value his opinions.

It is no wonder why debates with him quickly become personalized because he thinks that everyone is trying to trash his opinions and as opposed to making factual corrections.

Apparently, JK thinks that everyone else follows his model, however I have found that most Forum memembers are quite good at recognizing the difference between fact and opinion.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Crossbow
If one tries to point out facts, logic, and truth to JK,
Then JK changes the subject, obfuscates, and refuses to retort.
Note that the thread you referred to was full of images, drawings, and details that could be readily checked against other impartial sources.
Did JK attempt to do any of this checking on his own?
Judging by his repsonses, I would say no he did not do so.

In other words, the Jedi Knight Sheild Generator remains in full operation.hmm... You may be right. that'll teach me to underestimate the power of the dark side.
This thread too provides an excellent example of it at work where JK is constantly reporting his opinions as facts,
For example, "all atheists/liberals believe x", when it is demonstrable that there exists some atheists/liberals who don't believe x.
and when others counter his facts with actual facts JK gets angry because they do not value his opinions.JK, is it that people don't value your opinions or that you just don't like it when people question your opinions?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I just went back over and reviewed the thread, JK, and I still see no response. Care to join me over there to continue the discussion? I have no intention of hijacking this thread when another one exists on thetopic.
To the contrary, you challenged:

"If you go back to the page I linked that shows the specific design and mathematical properties of the D&M, what is there left to debate? Are you still trying to say that the D&M is not the shape that those scientists worked hundreds of hours on with that formula page?"

I then went through the page and showed that the analysis is far from conclusive and higly dependent on some big assumptions. But, again, I will be happy to discuss it with you over there, if you see some flaws in my analysis.

The D&M Pyramid is man-made. I already covered that.

JK

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The D&M Pyramid is man-made. I already covered that.True, you did express your opinion that it was man-made, but the page you linked to as evidence turned out to be rather weak and inconclusive.

So, to Crossbow's point, "The D&M Pyramid is man-made" is your opinion, not a proven fact. Correct?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The D&M Pyramid is man-made. I already covered that.

JK

And anyone who thinks otherwise is (check as many as apply):

_ Moron,
_ Aetheist,
_ Femminst,
_ Islamofascist,
_ Nazi,
_ Femminazi,
_ Democrat,
_ Saddamite,
_ Liberal,
_ Left-Wing,
et al.

P.S.: Thanks for the acknowledgement Upchurch! You could learn something from that JK provided that you did not already know everything.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Crossbow
If one tries to point out facts, logic, and truth to JK,
Then JK changes the subject, obfuscates, and refuses to retort.
Note that the thread you referred to was full of images, drawings, and details that could be readily checked against other impartial sources.
Did JK attempt to do any of this checking on his own?
Judging by his repsonses, I would say no he did not do so.

In other words, the Jedi Knight Sheild Generator remains in full operation.

This thread too provides an excellent example of it at work where JK is constantly reporting his opinions as facts,
and when others counter his facts with actual facts JK gets angry because they do not value his opinions.

It is no wonder why debates with him quickly become personalized because he thinks that everyone is trying to trash his opinions and as opposed to making factual corrections.

Apparently, JK thinks that everyone else follows his model, however I have found that most Forum memembers are quite good at recognizing the difference between fact and opinion. Logic is limited to the willingness of one to employ it.

The Greeks had the capacity to climb Mount Olympus. They did not simply because they new that they were right in their beliefs. The gods were there, why climb the mountain and suffer the wrath of god?

Selectively using logic is the best way to protect ones world view. Most if not all of us are guilty of this to some degree. It is in our nature and probably has some evolutionary value.

However, closing ones eyes, placing ones hands over ones ears and saying na na na to avoid the truth is the extreme example of selectively using logic. Jedi is certainly guilty of that extreme.

Why would he consider diagrams? Why would he consider any evidence that does not fit his world view?

Jedi, from what I can tell, is a nice guy. A rather normal fellow I'm sure. He simply is incapable of considering any evidence that would threaten his world view. As a defense mechanism he accuses everyone else of the same thing. He assumes we all selectively ignore the truth. The problem is that he is right to a small degree. Many of us, myself included do just that at times. Though I have never seen anyone make such an art of it as Jk.

JK can be quite useful to some of us. Particularly for those of us like me who at times dogmatically hold a set of entrenched views. It is so clear that JK ignores simple mundane facts to achieve an end. When I read such examples from JK it encourages me to question my beliefs. To examine my world view. Am I being sincere in my quest for the truth? I ask myself, am I acting like Jedi Knight?

[whitefork]

Did you all miss my off-topic/on-topic question on the previous page with reference to Tricky's gravity problem? I can't imagine why.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by whitefork
Did you all miss my off-topic/on-topic question on the previous page with reference to Tricky's gravity problem? I can't imagine why.

I caught it (and plan to think about it when my migraine goes away...)

[whitefork]

As I like to say, "I don't get headaches; I provide them".

[The Fool]

Jedi
I noticed that you ignored my post where i showed proof that hoagland was no where near the first to propose liquid water on europa. Can you now accept this? Or is this some sort of Hoagland mind control in action? Can he still rely on his small band of true believers to repeat his lies for him?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool
Jedi
I noticed that you ignored my post where i showed proof that hoagland was no where near the first to propose liquid water on europa. Can you now accept this? Or is this some sort of Hoagland mind control in action? Can he still rely on his small band of true believers to repeat his lies for him?

Hoagland mind control? That is a new one I never heard of. Explain it to me. Mind control interests me because it is a Jedi trait.

JK

[The Fool]

Jedi.
10 points for the attempted change of topic...looks like the mind control is working...you are incapable of answering the question regarding his europa claim? Is the plan to ignore the facts and hope people forget?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool
Jedi.
10 points for the attempted change of topic...looks like the mind control is working...you are incapable of answering the question regarding his europa claim? Is the plan to ignore the facts and hope people forget?

Hoagland was the first to propse there was water underneath the ice sheets on Europa and life there. Because of Hoagland's proposal, the movie 2010 used Europa.

That is proof and Hoagland will always get the credit for it and many, many other discoveries in science that he has made.

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hoagland was the first to propse there was water underneath the ice sheets on Europa and life there. Because of Hoagland's proposal, the movie 2010 used Europa.

That is proof and Hoagland will always get the credit for it and many, many other discoveries in science that he has made.

JK
oh well, I guess all the published articles that came before hoagland just didn't exist? How do you explain them?

anyway.....Its obvious you've shut this one down so continuing is pointless. Its clear that Hoagland does indeed have a small band of sycophants that are willing to repeat his lies, even in the face of glaring facts...

[wayrad]

Originally posted by whitefork
I got to thinking about the possibilities of a universe where the relative vacuum of our space is replaced by some kind of plenum, and the relatively rigid bodies of our planets and stars are replaced by voids.

In this case, as Wayrad has described, two voids separated by some distance will approach one another on account of the gravitational forces between the particles of the plenum (I'm thinking of this plenum as some analog of the old ether).

Now my question: do the void-bodies obey something like our laws of universal gravitation under these conditions? Would two or more be able to form some kind of orbital system, for example?
(making the necessary assumptions about the nature of the ether with regard to resistance, etc).

OK, the little guy with the hammer is being held at bay with Zomig and caffeine...Looking at a two-void problem, one requirement for an orbital system would be that at least one void should be moving in a direction that is not parallel to (edited to add: drat, "parallel to" doesn't mean what I want to say, make that "the same as that of") the force driving it toward the other void. I don't really see how this is to be effected other than by movement of the surrounding fluid, since a vacuum doesn't have mass, inertia, or, as far as I know, kinetic energy. So if there are only two voids I don't think you can get an orbital system, since the only fluid movement would be as described in the previous problem. I wonder whether there might be some chance for a three-void system with different size voids?

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Hoagland was the first to propse there was water underneath the ice sheets on Europa and life there.
If I may quote Melchett from Black Adder IV (the episode entitled "Private Plane"):

"That's the spirit, George. If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."

[Baker]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hoagland was the first to propse there was water underneath the ice sheets on Europa and life there. Because of Hoagland's proposal, the movie 2010 used Europa.

That is proof and Hoagland will always get the credit for it and many, many other discoveries in science that he has made.

JK

When did we prove that there was life on Europa?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Baker


When did we prove that there was life on Europa? I'm curious as well. :confused:

And the dates/years seem to NOT confirm that he was first anyhow? :confused:

[BillyJoe]

Mad Goat Disease is an STD

[RandFan]

Baker
When did we prove that there was life on Europa? Heloooo... didn't you see the movie? It available on VHS and DVD. Sheesh.

Bjorn
I'm curious as well. :confused:

And the dates/years seem to NOT confirm that he was first anyhow? :confused: Details, details, come on Bjorn, your too caught up in trivial details. Hoagland discovered both water and life on a moon in a galaxy far far away...er on it's 5 year mission to seek out new life...no that's not right...ah...in any event, your stubborn attention to details is keeping you from seeing the importance of Hoagland's discovery and the contribution he made to modern cinema.

Live long and prosper and may the farce be with you.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hoagland was the first to propse there was water underneath the ice sheets on Europa and life there. Because of Hoagland's proposal, the movie 2010 used Europa.

That is proof and Hoagland will always get the credit for it and many, many other discoveries in science that he has made.

JK

Behold Jedi Knight logic at work!

Since there is a science fiction movie about it,

It must be true.

Oh what a typical American he is!

[whitefork]

Wayrad, thanks for the analysis. I don't know of any way to prove or disprove it. The whole "Plenum" concept goes back to Descartes, as I recall. I should review that material sometime.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by whitefork
Wayrad, thanks for the analysis. I don't know of any way to prove or disprove it. The whole "Plenum" concept goes back to Descartes, as I recall. I should review that material sometime.

You're welcome. I have been thinking about what would happen with two voids of different sizes. Does it seem to you as if the large one would move more rapidly and hence be "attracted" to the small one more than vice versa? I think it would happen that way because fluid molecules near the larger void would experience the greatest asymmetry in the gravitational field and would therefore move more rapidly.

[Baker]

Originally posted by RandFan
Heloooo... didn't you see the movie? It available on VHS and DVD. Sheesh.


I guess that’s what I get for not updated my old VCR to a DVD there is no telling what kind of evidence I’m missing. j/k

[whitefork]

Originally posted by wayrad


You're welcome. I have been thinking about what would happen with two voids of different sizes. Does it seem to you as if the large one would move more rapidly and hence be "attracted" to the small one more than vice versa? I think it would happen that way because fluid molecules near the larger void would experience the greatest asymmetry in the gravitational field and would therefore move more rapidly. Beats me. I think that the conditions as stated do not provide enough information to answer the question. We'd need to know more about the nature of the plenum-matter. What do you want from a thought experiment, though? A few hours of entertainment is plenty for me right now.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The D&M Pyramid is man-made. I already covered that.

JK

Oh yes. You "covered" that here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11035&perpage=40&pagenumber=4).

Do remind me though:

Where is the apex? Where are the edges?

[Wolverine]

Huh?! Who made it, Lee Iacocca??

[voidx]

Jumping Gee-hos-afats!!!! Its a giant SPACE GIRAFFE!!

Earth Giraffe's = long lost descendants of Space Giraffe's
Space Giraffes = evil sloppy uneven pyramid making bastards
Therefore! = *insert absurd JK ******** here* but regardless make sure you go out and beat the ass off at least one evil commie leftist uneven pyramid making Giraffe bastard, like a good American!

[Frank Newgent]

The plot thickens. First this:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=420698#post420698

Now this:

http://www.statesman.com/nationworld/content/news/050303/0503oldman.html

"With heavy rains and high winds and freezing temperatures, not to mention those UFO slave bases on the other side of the moon, the combination was just right to loosen him up," he said. "We always thought it was the hand of God holding him up, and he let go."

Goddamned Martians are everywhere all the time...

[renata]

Bump- oldie but goodie :)

[rikzilla]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Corplinx's wife!
;)

-z

[Baker]

Oh The memories!