Addressing the formation of the solar system

In article merica,
"Mark Earnest" wrote:

Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.

No, that's engineering and economics you're thinking of there.

Cat.

"The Stainless Steel Cat" wrote in message
...
In article merica,
"Mark Earnest" wrote:

Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.

No, that's engineering and economics you're thinking of there.

Cat.

Engineering is religious fanaticism? Well, coming from a steel cat
we shouldn't be surprised at that remark...

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising, because
you are a troll, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the
aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.

Androcles wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Mark Earnest wrote:

In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,

No information can be transferred faster than light.

Yeah, yeah, and chant "Einstein akbar" while you are at it,
you religious dork.

Oh dear. Has nasty Mr Punch hit one of Androcles sock puppets over the
head again. What a shame....

Show us your FTL spaceship then fantasy boy!

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Mark Earnest wrote:

In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,

No information can be transferred faster than light.

Yeah, yeah, and chant "Einstein akbar" while you are at it,
you religious dork.

Oh dear. Has nasty Mr Punch hit one of Androcles sock puppets over the
head again. What a shame....

Show us your FTL spaceship then fantasy boy!

Sure...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

Now show your evidence that no information can be transferred faster
than light then, religious fanatic!
Can't huh? What a ****ing shame, you are caught bull****ting after
praying to St. Einstein in whom you devoutly believe, cretin.

On 09/04/09 02:14, Mark Earnest wrote:

That is no theory to scientists. It is considered solid fact.

No its not. I've already given you references, but you're as capable as
the next person of doing a web-search.

I know, every time I try to tell a scientist that this is wrong, I get
hit in the face with it.

Which scientists? Biologists? Electrical engineers? Quantum physicists?
Pharmacists? Science is an enormous field and just like I have no idea
what the laws are governing molecular biology, I wouldn't expect a
chemist to know the detail of relativity or quantum mech.

And furthermo we're surrounded by scientific theories which are
regarded as "laws of physics" by laypeople and those whose experience
isn't in the right field. That's a matter of convenience, not fact.
Newton's laws are wrong - but mostly they're good enough to be
considered as laws. General relativity is a theory which fits most known
pertinent observations - but its still a theory.


an object in motion stays in motion.
A theory based on observation and backed up by maths.

Sure, math is just a part of science, so that means nothing at all.

The classic response - deny the supplementary proof exists.

By the way, maths isn't a science. Applied Maths is a tool used by
scientists. Pure Maths is a form of philosophy. See Popper et al.

I have nothing to do with religion in the name of theism, either.

Again definitionally, religion is organized theism.

some in the name of commerce. Damn few did it in the name of science.

Yes, they do.

Name some scientists who burned christians alive in the name of science,
or overran africa with fire and sword to prove a theory.

I tried to tell scientists how we can get to Alpha Centauri
in less than a month, with modern technology, proving it by the physics of
orbital mechanics, and the pompous religious scholars just told me to
go "peruse the journals."

If you're certain you're right, get your research peer-reviewed and
published. Here would be an interesting place, there's plenty of people
who will read it and point out any issues for you.

However given the ignorance you've displayed of orbital mechanics,
momentum and stellar physics, and given the disdain you've shown for
maths, many will start from a sceptical point of view.

With that kind of an attitude, the type of the religious, we will never get
anywhere. All they want to do is look down their noses at people that do
not think exactly as they do.

No, all they want to do is stop you making a terrible fool of yourself
by publishing patently incorrect and nonsensical research.

That is why today's science sucks.

What you seem to be saying is "the critics panned my work, so I hate
them all".

We are talking getting man to the stars, not probes which hardly count.

Ever heard of "walk before you run" ?
And at least you admit you were wrong.

On 09/04/09 02:20, Mark Earnest wrote:
(I wrote)
Question: if there are a billion moving objects in a galaxy-sized space
moving in random directions for ten billion years, what is the probability
of two of them passing near enough to gravitationally affect each other?

Not much,

Provide the stats please.

seeing as the stars are moving so very, very slow.

Er... the sun is travelling at about 500,000 miles an hour.

Notice that the Big Dipper is still the Big Dipper thousands of years
after it was first recorded.

Cluefest: thousands is much smaller than billions.

And actually, its shape has changed quite a bit. 50,000 years ago it
looked more like a kite. There are early chinese paintings and even cave
paintings from 10,000 yrs ago showing it looking different to today.

that stars just ventured anywhere near each other and got
caught in each other's gravity.
When did anyone say that's what happened?

I thought Brad was saying that,

Brad is a well-known troll and knows nothing about anything.

On 09/04/09 08:36, Martin Brown wrote:

No information can be transferred faster than light.

Actually, that's not true. There was an article in Nature last year
about a successful QE experiment which transmitted information FTL.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture07121.html

If I remember correctly, the information was transferred at about
10,000x the speed of light in a vacuum.

--
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ http://c-faq.com/
CLC readme: http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

On 09/04/09 12:12, Androcles wrote:
"Martin wrote in message

Show us your FTL spaceship then fantasy boy!

Sure...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

This shows a bunch of pretty drawings of curves.

Now show your evidence that no information can be transferred faster
than light then, religious fanatic!

Martin is a little out of date, is all.

On 09/04/09 11:33, Androcles wrote:

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising, because
you are a troll, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the
aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

If your message were genuinely automated, it'd be busy sending yourself
the same message....

Mark McIntyre wrote:
On 09/04/09 08:36, Martin Brown wrote:

No information can be transferred faster than light.

Actually, that's not true. There was an article in Nature last year
about a successful QE experiment which transmitted information FTL.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture07121.html

If I remember correctly, the information was transferred at about
10,000x the speed of light in a vacuum.

The collapse of the entangled wavefunction gave a correlation
measurement that is consistent with very fast, quite possibly infinite
speed action at a distance. That is more likely to indicate that the
intersection of quantum mechanics, the Bell inequality and special
relativity is incompletely described by current theory.

The full article is online at arXiv without paying Natures extortionate
fees.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...808.3316v1.pdf

It is an elegant and interesting new test on a tricky area of QM. Thanks
for pointing it out.

But it still doesn't allow you to send a message at faster than light
speed. The "information" being shared by the photons is beyond our control.

Quoting from their paper on page 2 para 1
"In both of these analyses we termed the hypothetical supra-luminal
influence, the speed of quantum information, to stress that it is not a
classical signaling. We shall keep this terminology, but we like
to emphasize that this is only the speed of a hypothetical influence and
that our result casts very serious doubts on its existence."

Newton required gravity with infinite speed action at a distance to have
stable orbits around the sun. He wasn't keen on it either, but it took a
long while before a new more complete theory could solve the puzzle.

Regards,
Martin Brown