**(Deep Impact) First Close-up Photos of Comet Hartley 2 Reveal a Space Peanut (Video)

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by nataylor

 

*You keep attacking mnemeth1, but he doesn't attack you. For example, accusing him of simultaneously using multiple names on a board and offering no proof is somewhat despicable.

edit on 7-11-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

I'm not saying he did or didn't do that. I'm saying that's what the the mod at the BAUT forum says:

mnemeth banned as a sock puppet of a previously banned user. Since the OP "question" has been adequately answered, this thread is closed.

Does he deny that? He says he was banned because they want to "suppress" his ideas, yet he doesn't say if he is actually guilty of what they accuse him of.

What I'm saying is, it doesn't matter what they accuse me of, they ALL - ALL THE MAJOR BOARDS - do not tolerate any discussion of plasma cosmology.

If you learn plasma cosmology to the point where you can cogently defend it in a scientific debate, you will be banned.

Case in point, Eric Lerner.

Eric Lerner is a professional plasma physicist who is currently working on a dense plasma focus fusion device. You can see his Google Tech Talk on the subject here.

Lerner tried to defend plasma cosmology on wiki way back in the day.

Guess what that got him?

They use the "sock puppet" as an excuse to avoid debate.

Check out the discussion section of the wiki plasma cosmology article. "ELerner is banned from editing this article"

Of course, Lerner is an ApJ published plasma physicist.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by mnemeth1

The sock puppet is an old excuse they use to shut down any discussion of plasma cosmology.

Dissent cannot be tolerated.

They ban you for talking about plasma cosmology, then when you come back under a new name with something they cannot refute they ban you for A)not adhering to the 'mainstream view' or B)ban you for being banned and say you're a sockpuppet.

....Or C) Several members barrage you with several questions apiece and then the mods ban you for not answering them within a certain time limit.

Muahahahaha.

edit on 7-11-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

Looks like you've spent some time over at physics.org hahah.

Yeah man, you nailed it right on the money.

It's like they are working off of a script.

mnemeth, first up i agree with you on the comet, i also think the discharges are best explained by plasma cosmology and its clearly not a dirty snowball.

However, your exchange with nataylor really arent helping your cause nor the cause of plasma cosmology. You are coming off really close minded and have not interpreted the posts directed at you as they were written.

First off, i agree that the mainstream forums try to supress discussion of plasma cosmology as much as possible. However, if you were previously banned from BAUT, regardless of the reason, then you have broken their rules and your current ban is absolutely correct. This is separate from any content you have posted and you need to accept that.

Secondly, nataylor has a point regarding the jets on Enceladus. The images seem to support his point of view more clearly than yours, however you either dont want to or cannot see that. Once again that doesnt reflect well on you and makes you seem as much of a zealot as those in the mainstream who would defend the dirty snowball. If you want to argue this point find a better pic of the jets being luminous which cant be seen to be particles higher in the atmosphere being lit by the sun.

Dont take this the wrong way, i'm just trying to explain how you come across to observers in your posts because i want your threads to really get their point across. If you toned it down a bit i think you'd make quite an impact on ATS given the passion you have for plasma cosmology and that would be a great thing.

Check out this link on more Info on comet and NASA Fly by VDO

www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org...

I have see the VDO's it is good.

Originally posted by zvezdar
.
First off, i agree that the mainstream forums try to supress discussion of plasma cosmology as much as possible. However, if you were previously banned from BAUT, regardless of the reason, then you have broken their rules and your current ban is absolutely correct. This is separate from any content you have posted and you need to accept that.

Clearly you do not know how things work on BAUT.

If you would like to pretend that mnemeth1 would not have been banned for any other reasons, then feel free to engage in such a delusion, that is your choice.

Had mnemeth1 never been banned from that site before, he surely would have been banned when he could not answer the barrage of questions in the time allotted by some moderator, or he would have been banned for responding to one of the many insults disguised as questions - or even for failing to respond.

You know how to ask an insulting question don't you, son?





(You have 24hrs to answer this question. Fail to do so and you will be banned. Muahahaha)

reply to post by Exuberant1


That's right.

Nataylor is creating a totally unsubstantiated history of my transactions with BAUT then using this to discredit my posts as if this has any bearing on anything.

What I did on BAUT is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

The fact that they clearly banned me for posting a totally legitimate question on their boards while at the same time saying the "mainstream" can not be questioned speaks VOLUMES about their scientific credibility.

As you may notice, we have spent the past several pages of this post completely side tracked from the main discussion of the OP article. - which I'm sure was nataylors intent with his bickering over the reason for my ban.

Exuberant1's previous post on their methods of operation is right on the money. They will construct reasons to ban people who present cogent scientific arguments against the mainstream. I want to be clear, it is not just BAUT that engages in this ridiculous behavior.

ALL the major science boards do the exact same things Exuberant1 describes - including wiki.

Exuberant1 knows the routine just as well as I do. It is like a pre-formated script they go through to ban all discussions of plasma cosmology.

I'd also like to point out that if they did ban me for previous history, that means some mod must have taken it upon himself to cross-reference IP addresses and a whole host of other rigmarole to make the determination that I was a sock-puppet. What would cause a mod to bother going through all that trouble?

The answer is, they didn't. They saw a PC post and hit the ban button.

Anti-global warming science can be thrown in there as well.

reply to post by zvezdar


You know I'd tell you to go try it yourself, but the problem is they would absolutely smash you in a debate.

They don't view people like you as any kind of a threat if you were to make a post on plasma cosmology.

It is only people like myself who have literally spent years pouring over the research that they fear.

God forbid someone like Lerner gets on their boards, he would be banned inside of two seconds once they found out who he was.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The fact that they clearly banned me for posting a totally legitimate question on their boards while at the same time saying the "mainstream" can not be questioned speaks VOLUMES about their scientific credibility.

Again you fail to realize they have a whole separate section of their forum for non-mainstream stuff. The particular section you were in doesn't allow that discussion, not the entire forum.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
As you may notice, we have spent the past several pages of this post completely side tracked from the main discussion of the OP article. - which I'm sure was nataylors intent with his bickering over the reason for my ban.

You're the one that originally brought up the ban. You're the one who somehow thinks it lends credibility to your views. My point was that I think you might have a problem processing information, not being able to see that your posts broke the rules, you had a different area in which to post your information, and that registering under a new name is also a violation of the rules. This speaks to your general ability to formulate and process evidence, and that might be of interest to other readers who are making judgments about the credibility of your arguments

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I'd also like to point out that if they did ban me for previous history, that means some mod must have taken it upon himself to cross-reference IP addresses and a whole host of other rigmarole to make the determination that I was a sock-puppet. What would cause a mod to bother going through all that trouble?

The answer is, they didn't. They saw a PC post and hit the ban button.

See, you still don't say that you haven't registered and posted there under a different name. In fact, that post seems to imply you have. Complaining and speculating about the reasons behind getting banned when, in fact, the stated reason for the ban is true speaks to your character. That you would invent hidden motivations and rationale behind your ban contrary to the evidence and facts, to me, also brings into question your ability to evaluate scientific evidence and facts.

We obviously have very different world views. I just don't see the point of bringing up a ban and then complaining when it gets discussed. But I'd be happy to stick to science strictly.

So, if these are self-luminous jets, you should be able to find some on Enceladus that aren't in the sun or directly along the terminus. They should be visible anywhere on the night side of the moon. If you can fund some, that would be a major bit of evidence in favor of your view.

reply to post by nataylor


No, you wouldn't necessarily find them on the dark side of Enceladus, and there are very clear reasons for this that we can see taking place on our own moon.

science.nasa.gov...

Take a look at the picture.

Plasma regions that are different will bound themselves off from each other, and the discharges that take place typically happen along the double layer boundary that is formed between them.

For more proof, discharges can be seen on our own moons light/dark boundary:





Those discharges on our own moon are occurring for the exact same reasons they are occurring on Enceladus.

You need to pick up a book on plasma physics that isn't a bunch of regurgitated lies by the mainstream.

Check out Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma" - its an oldie but a goodie.

I know, it is shocking how I know so much - but I don't really know all that much, I just have a basic insight into plasma cosmology.

More on the lunar and Martian dusts
science.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Exuberant1


I am not suggesting that he would not have been banned for the content, merely that nataylor is correct in the point he makes: there is an 'alternative' board and if mnemeth posted using a different name after being banned he just made it easy for them to ban him under their rules. However because he contradicted the rules its now difficult for him to convince an observer that he was banned for the content.

I am well aware of how BAUT operates, however my point is that mnemeth makes it easy for people to marginalise him because of the way he is posting. I would love for him to make it difficult to ignore him by directly answering the questions posed and toning down the aggression which never does anyone any good.

Plasma cosmology is an important field and a lot of threads on here have IMO done damage to the cause rather than helped.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by zvezdar

 

You know I'd tell you to go try it yourself, but the problem is they would absolutely smash you in a debate.

They don't view people like you as any kind of a threat if you were to make a post on plasma cosmology.

It is only people like myself who have literally spent years pouring over the research that they fear.

God forbid someone like Lerner gets on their boards, he would be banned inside of two seconds once they found out who he was.

You may have spent years researching, but honestly that doesnt come across in your posts because of the emotive posting style. I reckon if some of your posts were tweaked to present the mainstream view, but in the same form and language, you would dismiss them on style as well.

I'll put it another way, guys like Lerner, Perratt, Thornhill et al would not be calling Einstein a retard or using emotive language to sensationalise or get their point across. Thronhill in this thread would have presented similar information but in a different style and it would have made it a lot more difficult to argue with him. This is what i'm trying to say, more content (which is what makes the mainstreamers flip out) and less name-calling and emotion.

The whole 'people like you' thing is the kind of dismissive comment that gets people offside. People dont like to be treated with contempt and if you do so they will be completely closed to whatever message you have. In this case it makes no difference, because quite frankly i dont care what you think i do or dont know, but again just sayin' if you wanna sell a message dont start insulting your audience...

reply to post by zvezdar


Einstein was a fool.

I have no tolerance for liars and thieves.

Oh by the way, I agree that Thornhill and Peratt would be nice little diplomats.

But Scott and Lerner would blow a gasket.

They are like me in that regard.

its cool that we get such close up photos of comet hartley! it really is an interesting shape! S & F

UPDATE:

Close-Up Photos of a Snowstorm-Spewing Comet
11 Photos.
www.foxnews.com...=4

Covers over a oot of what was discussed when the thread was originally posted. So. Snow and Ice..