Draw a line between 2 planet positions every few days. Watch what happens - Mind = Blown

a reply to: wmd_2008

Yes the motto is DENY IGNORANCE and that's why people post academic answers when other members may not be familiar with the reason why something happens or is seen etc.

Ignorance is not only denied through studying text books..there are many ways to wisdom and knowledge and not all of it can be taught.

Surely, if a member is educated enough, intelligent enough and generally wise enough to post reliable and straight forward accurate answers to technological, scientific or indeed religious or spiritual questions and queries...wouldn't they then be smart enough and wise enough to recognise that perhaps other people have other views and opinions, which right or wrong, they are perfectly entitled to explore and invite like-minded others to comment upon, on these public boards?

I would say that is a fairly obvious thing to be cognizant of, if indeed the academics are as intelligent as they'd like to imagine, wouldn't you?

There's a lot of intolerant people around here, and that's a shame. All ideas and opinions are valid and to some at least, valuable, even those that are scientifically inaccurate according to known physics or principles.

a reply to: MysterX

YOU are still avoiding the crux of the matter as usual x

For example

Q) HUH NASA fakes these space pictures I see the Earth/Moon surface/Astronaut in them and no stars.

A) Well the answer is stars because they are so much fainter if you expose for them the EARTH ETC will be over exposed, if you expose for the Earth etc the stars are vastly under exposed!

So please tell us all what is wrong in pointing out the OBVIOUS error because they don't understand,have experience in photography and then the same for any other subject that is well understood and verifiable.

How could the above question with it's obvious opinion be valid/valuable when it is wrong

If the question is asked like this

Q) Can someone explain why there are no stars in NASA picture of the Earth etc

That is valid/valuable because the poster wants to learn and shows that.

a reply to: MysterX

Speculation is in order when the answer to a question is not known. If the answer is known, then further speculation is stupid and pointless. Many people here speculate on questions to which the answers are known. They do so because they are unaware of the answers. They are ignorant about the subject they're discussing.

Very often, when people are corrected by those who do know better, they don't accept correction politely as they should, or raise some reasonable objection, but answer back and insult the person who tried to help them.

That is the behaviour you seek to excuse and justify. In England they call it pig-ignorance. It is ugly and disrespectful, not to only to the person who has made some effort to learn the truth and is only trying to share their knowledge, but also to the subject itself.

All opinions are not equally valid. Only informed opinions have any value at all. The rest is just empty-headed prating.

a reply to: MysterX

I'm sorry to say I just saw this in another thread.

There's speculation on ATS about the Iron having possibly once been coated with pure gold, that would have negated the toxicity angle, and could even be an explanation for the use of items like the so-called 'Baghdad batteries'.

You know as well as I do that the 'Baghdad battery' was nothing of the kind. That 'speculation' has been debunked not once, but about a dozen times on ATS. Yet there you are, trailing that rotten, stinking old red herring across yet another discussion thread.

Your attempt to denigrate those who seek to put an end to this kind of nonsense is spurious and dishonourable.

a reply to: wmd_2008

No, they don't move in perfectly circular orbits. But if you average the orbits from perigee to apogee, you can still produce these plots. It's just interesting art, no reason to blast the concept.

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Astyanax
What i do find odd, is how many members spend their valuable time reading posts which they consider to be drivel soaked and meaningless.

Much, MUCH worse than odd is the way members continue to saturate threads here with drivel even after having had it pointed out what they are doing and why it is wrong.

Harte

Oh?

You find that odd? you just posted a shovel full of pointless drivel yourself.

No drivel in my post at all. You nead to increase your vocabulary.

In order to help you to understand the point I was communicating, your claim to superior maturity aside, I'll tell you that the fact that this is a public forum doesn't excuse repeatedly making the same claim multiple times after that same claim has been shown to be groundless.

This is obviously understandable when a new poster comes on and posts about an old and previously discredited claim. However, the appeal to the site's being "public" does not excuse the same poster from making the same claim in another thread when that claim has been thoroughly refuted.

Do you possess the maturity understand the above?

originally posted by: MysterX
By the way, your avatar is also ironic..i don't reckon you have one

I don't have one for such people as I described above.

Harte

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: wmd_2008

No, they don't move in perfectly circular orbits. But if you average the orbits from perigee to apogee, you can still produce these plots. It's just interesting art, no reason to blast the concept.

Good you see it has to be fudged to make it work

a reply to: wmd_2008

Well, yes. That's obvious. But I still think it's interesting art.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: wmd_2008

Well, yes. That's obvious. But I still think it's interesting art.

Yes it's interesting but the thread title is misleading if you know the orbits aren't circular, look at some of the post regarding it because people think this is an exact representation of reality, that's all I am trying to point out.

Neat. Reminds me of pictures of crop circles.
Crop circle

a reply to: wmd_2008

Ok, I cede the point.

originally posted by: angryhulk
Thanks for the thread, and for sharing such a wonderful phenomenon.

For those of you who have not yet seen the diagrams, this is the Earth/Venus relationship.

This almost looks like a mandala. Sacred geometry a its finest.

a reply to: Harte

This is obviously understandable when a new poster comes on and posts about an old and previously discredited claim. However, the appeal to the site's being "public" does not excuse the same poster from making the same claim in another thread when that claim has been thoroughly refuted. Do you possess the maturity understand the above?

What...like when a poster comes on and tries repeatedly to discredit or challenge something like...oh, i don't know...let's say one of the scientifically cherished, almost fanatically guarded physical laws perhaps?

One like the centuries old, 'Law of Momentum' for example?

A 'Law' that has often been challenged by alternative thinkers imaginatively conjuring or weaving 'the impossible' into theories, and just as often those alternative thinkers have been brow beaten by folks like you, and the few other intellectually closed books on this thread...YET..now that law has OFFICIALLY been discredited and debunked in itself.

You've heard of the 'impossible' EM drives...the VALIDATED technology that shows basic and long cherished scientific tenets are a fallacy, at least in some cases. If the EM drive showing that basic 'laws of physics' do not ALWAYS apply in ALL practical situations and apply equally to ALL engineering platforms, doesn't give text book jockey's at least some intellectual disquiet...you're too far gone down the road of institutionalised academic snobbery to be redeemed.

You're a lost hope, and unfortunately a lot of good brain power is going to waste in fruitless and ultimately flat out wrong conclusions, based on faulty thinking.

How ironic..and sad, sad for science and sad for our societies.

Perhaps if folks like yourself hadn't been so obstinately rigid and intellectually inflexible in the preceding decades or indeed centuries, our species may well have entered space decades sooner, made scientific discoveries much sooner that would have led to earlier explorations of our system, and even by now, could have established colonies on other planets...not to mention using the technology to make life on Earth cleaner and more efficient, thus saving many actual, as opposed to theoretical lives.

But, it's obviously more important to a lot of people here to be seen to be right, than as it transpires, to actually be right. Another shame.

I think most of you will have the maturity to appreciate the irony, considering the tenor of the replies i've received for my views but i doubt you'll have the maturity to admit to it...a fundamental difference.

Absolutes have no place in science, and you ought to be mindful of this when scoffing at those who may ultimately prove there are more than one way to skin a cat.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Harte

This is obviously understandable when a new poster comes on and posts about an old and previously discredited claim. However, the appeal to the site's being "public" does not excuse the same poster from making the same claim in another thread when that claim has been thoroughly refuted. Do you possess the maturity understand the above?

What...like when a poster comes on and tries repeatedly to discredit or challenge something like...oh, i don't know...let's say one of the scientifically cherished, almost fanatically guarded physical laws perhaps?

One like the centuries old, 'Law of Momentum' for example?

No. More like when a poster comes on claiming the Ancient Egyptians had light bulbs or helicopters.

Or that there is evidence of a nuclear attack on Mohenjo Daro.

Or that we evolved from monkeys.

Or that Nibiru is a planet.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Oh NOW i get it, ANY theory that you don't personally agree with HAS to be wrong. Is that about right?

What's the definition of a Bigot again?

bigot ˈbɪɡət/ noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. "don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city" synonyms: dogmatist, partisan, sectarian, prejudiced person;

Notice, i'm not calling you a bigot, just that your answers seem to be very orientated in that direction. Perhaps something you may wish to address in yourself...up to you, but at any rate, may explain a great deal about the tenor of your replies and ridged inflexibility in your pursuit of kudos at the expense of alternatives to your views, which may hold more truth than your own.

You ignore the EM drive example above at your intellectual peril, while listing examples that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and are only being mentioned here by yourself.

The basic principle is; Even long held scientific beliefs, basic assumptions backed by so-called hard and repeatedly proven science and practical examples in everyday usage for decades and longer..can be still be wrong. The EM drive being 'impossible' according to conventional wisdom is one such example of ridged, inflexible scientific dogma blinding itself and it's proponents to the truth in reality.

The Impossible isn't always impossible, and to believe it is, is doing yourself and society in general a great disservice.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Harte
Notice, i'm not calling you a bigot, just that your answers seem to be very orientated in that direction. Perhaps something you may wish to address in yourself...up to you, but at any rate, may explain a great deal about the tenor of your replies and ridged inflexibility in your pursuit of kudos at the expense of alternatives to your views, which may hold more truth than your own.

Denying ignorance is a very broad definition of bigot. Such a definition could literally be applied to anything. Intolerant of Hitler? Bigot!

You ignore the EM drive example above at your intellectual peril, while listing examples that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and are only being mentioned here by yourself.

The EM Drive has not been "VALIDATED!". Experimenter error still has not been ruled out.

The basic principle is; Even long held scientific beliefs, basic assumptions backed by so-called hard and repeatedly proven science and practical examples in everyday usage for decades and longer..can be still be wrong. The EM drive being 'impossible' according to conventional wisdom is one such example of ridged, inflexible scientific dogma blinding itself and it's proponents to the truth in reality.

If methodically ruling out all other mundane explanations before leaping to improbable conclusions is "ridged, inflexible scientific dogma blinding itself and it's proponents to the truth in reality" then your understanding of the scientific method is fatally flawed. The fact that you consider the EM Drive "VALIDATED!" says a lot about your ability to parse and critically evaluate sensationalist media stories and a lack of due diligence to carefully read the source material before leaping to conclusions.

More to the point, even if the EM Drive was "VALIDATED!", that wouldn't lend any more credibility to crackpot theories that are routinely touted here in the face of evidence to the contrary.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Harte

Oh NOW i get it, ANY theory that you don't personally agree with HAS to be wrong. Is that about right?

What's the definition of a Bigot again?

bigot ˈbɪɡət/ noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. "don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city" synonyms: dogmatist, partisan, sectarian, prejudiced person;

Notice, i'm not calling you a bigot, just that your answers seem to be very orientated in that direction. Perhaps something you may wish to address in yourself...up to you, but at any rate, may explain a great deal about the tenor of your replies and ridged inflexibility in your pursuit of kudos at the expense of alternatives to your views, which may hold more truth than your own.

The views I'm talking about are factual, not opinions.

Ideas that run counter to established facts are not opinions, they are stupidity.

originally posted by: MysterXYou ignore the EM drive example above at your intellectual peril, while listing examples that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and are only being mentioned here by yourself.

"Ignore?" I wasn't commenting on it. That's "ignoring" it?

The thread isn't about that. Why should I comment on it?

Also, since you've already reached a decision on this claim, you make yourself appear bigoted - intolerant of other people's opinions. Particularly, those of physicists.

And, yes, in the case of the EM drive you're talking about, there is nothing but opinion involved since the phenomenon, if it actually exists, has been neither explored nor explained.

originally posted by: MysterXThe basic principle is; Even long held scientific beliefs, basic assumptions backed by so-called hard and repeatedly proven science and practical examples in everyday usage for decades and longer..can be still be wrong. The EM drive being 'impossible' according to conventional wisdom is one such example of ridged, inflexible scientific dogma blinding itself and it's proponents to the truth in reality.

It is only "impossible" once the "impossibility" of it has been established.

Since no one has even tried to explain it, you're bigoted "impossible" claim is out of line.

originally posted by: MysterXThe Impossible isn't always impossible, and to believe it is, is doing yourself and society in general a great disservice.

Not as great as the disservice you do by assuming you know what other people think before they even comment.

Harte

a reply to: MysterX

That was one of the most passionate defences of wilful ignorance and stupidity I have ever seen. You must really love them both.

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

That is very cool! Grats on your post!!

I approve with 3 thumbs up!

originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouare

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare
Ok.
But the spin of each varies. All electrons are not the same.

The varying spin of said electron is caused by outside forces.

No, it's not! By the very definition of what we call "spin" it can't be an outside force. Spin is the INTRINSIC angular momentum of a particle. And the amount of spin cannot be changed by any outside force. It is either 0, 1/2, 1, 3//2, 2 etc. The direction can be changed. The electron, as a lepton, has spin 1/2. That's not 0 and it's not 1, and cannot be either, so there goes your binary theory.
In fact, every electron is described by its 4 digit quantum number. The first , or principal, number may not be a 0. It can be 1, 2, 3 since it describes the size of the orbital. The second number, or angular number, describes the shape of the orbital. It can only be 0 (spherical), 1 (polar), or 2 (cloverleaf). The third, or magnetic, number can be any integer between plus and minus the angular number. The 4th number is the intrinsic angular momentum (spin) which is a 1/2 .