Bad Astronomy attacks Plasma Physicists

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...


OG wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...


OG wrote:


"Mad Scientist" wrote in message


et.cable.rogers.com...

The folks over on Bad Astronomy demonstrate why no one really pays
attention to them. If we wanted insults, we can just flick the

channel


over to SNL and have a good laugh, or for the asronomical minded, we

can


just surf over to listen to the folks of kooks of badastronomy.com

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...ney/index.html



Please explain what the title of this thread has to do with the link

to

Bad Astronomy.

Isn't Jim interested in plasma studies?


I don't think so, not as a physicist anyway.


My only knowledge about McCanney is that he promotes Plasma Physics
studies. Bad Astronomy is wrong to single him out, because Plasma
Physics is a legitimate science.

It is, but MCanney is a fruitcake.

HTH





If someone can show me where i am wrong, than I will withdraw my
conclusions about what Bad Astronomy has done.

Calling McCanney a nitwit is an understatement.
HTH

Whatever kook

Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...

Bad Astronomy shows they aren't interested in science, but media exposure.



Aww., poor little kook, doesn't like his favourite fantasies being exposed
and laughed at.
Live with it, nitwit.




Eric the half a bee wrote:


On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:39:22 +0000, Mad Scientist wrote:



The folks over on Bad Astronomy demonstrate why no one really pays
attention to them. If we wanted insults, we can just flick the channel
over to SNL and have a good laugh, or for the asronomical minded, we can
just surf over to listen to the folks of kooks of badastronomy.com

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...ney/index.html



The bad astronomy site is a very good one. It rips apart all of the
asinine beliefs of the nutjobs out there. Naturally, the freaks hate the
site, it destroys their grand delusions.

You must think that 'comets' are 'dirty snowballs'. LOL In fact any
astronomer who promotes such a funking big lie ought to drop down and
kiss their own ass.

Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...


OG wrote:


"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
s.net.cable.rogers.com...


OG wrote:



"Mad Scientist" wrote in message


s.net.cable.rogers.com...


The folks over on Bad Astronomy demonstrate why no one really pays
attention to them. If we wanted insults, we can just flick the

channel



over to SNL and have a good laugh, or for the asronomical minded, we

can



just surf over to listen to the folks of kooks of badastronomy.com

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...ney/index.html



Please explain what the title of this thread has to do with the link

to


Bad Astronomy.

Isn't Jim interested in plasma studies?


I don't think so, not as a physicist anyway.


My only knowledge about McCanney is that he promotes Plasma Physics
studies. Bad Astronomy is wrong to single him out, because Plasma
Physics is a legitimate science.


It is, but MCanney is a fruitcake.

HTH





If someone can show me where i am wrong, than I will withdraw my
conclusions about what Bad Astronomy has done.


Calling McCanney a nitwit is an understatement.
HTH

"Mad Scientist"
wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
OG wrote:
Please explain what the title of this thread has to do with the link
to
Bad Astronomy.

Isn't Jim interested in plasma studies?


I don't think so, not as a physicist anyway.


My only knowledge about McCanney is that he promotes Plasma Physics
studies. Bad Astronomy is wrong to single him out, because Plasma
Physics is a legitimate science.
If someone can show me where i am wrong, than I will withdraw my
conclusions about what Bad Astronomy has done.

Just because Plasma Physics is a legitimate science doesn't mean that
everyone who posts on the internet about it is legitimately interested
in the science.

Have you read what J McC has written about Astronomy?
Have you read what Bad Astronomy has written about J McC ?

JMcC's website does not contain enough science to justify its headline
arguments.
Bad Astronomy does give enough science to criticise JMcC's headline
arguments.

To say that BA is an attack on Plasma Physics is indefensible; rather it
is a defence of Plasma Physics, against the bad physics of J McC.

Are you prepared to withdraw your conclusions about BA?

OG wrote:

"Mad Scientist"

wrote in message

t.cable.rogers.com...

OG wrote:

Please explain what the title of this thread has to do with the link
to

Bad Astronomy.

Isn't Jim interested in plasma studies?


I don't think so, not as a physicist anyway.


My only knowledge about McCanney is that he promotes Plasma Physics
studies. Bad Astronomy is wrong to single him out, because Plasma
Physics is a legitimate science.
If someone can show me where i am wrong, than I will withdraw my
conclusions about what Bad Astronomy has done.


Just because Plasma Physics is a legitimate science doesn't mean that
everyone who posts on the internet about it is legitimately interested
in the science.

Have you read what J McC has written about Astronomy?
Have you read what Bad Astronomy has written about J McC ?

JMcC's website does not contain enough science to justify its headline
arguments.
Bad Astronomy does give enough science to criticise JMcC's headline
arguments.

To say that BA is an attack on Plasma Physics is indefensible; rather it
is a defence of Plasma Physics, against the bad physics of J McC.

Are you prepared to withdraw your conclusions about BA?



If what you say is completely true, ofcourse. However they have also
singled out his 'dirty snowball' article. Frankly, I only support him
because of the plasma considerations when dealing with comets.

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...

If what you say is completely true, ofcourse. However they have also
singled out his 'dirty snowball' article. Frankly, I only support him
because of the plasma considerations when dealing with comets.


OK, fair enough,
now please give your explanation of his considerations and how this
relates to the contrary view put forward by BA.

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
You must think that 'comets' are 'dirty snowballs'. LOL In fact any
astronomer who promotes such a funking big lie ought to drop down and
kiss their own ass.

Can you justify this statement ? Please share your view of the nature of
comets so we can all discuss the evidence.

OG wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...

You must think that 'comets' are 'dirty snowballs'. LOL In fact any
astronomer who promotes such a funking big lie ought to drop down and
kiss their own ass.


Can you justify this statement ? Please share your view of the nature of
comets so we can all discuss the evidence.


Can you justify asking me to justify it?

In defense of the big bang plasma? You are joking right?

OG wrote:

"Mad Scientist"

wrote in message

t.cable.rogers.com...

OG wrote:

Please explain what the title of this thread has to do with the link
to

Bad Astronomy.

Isn't Jim interested in plasma studies?


I don't think so, not as a physicist anyway.


My only knowledge about McCanney is that he promotes Plasma Physics
studies. Bad Astronomy is wrong to single him out, because Plasma
Physics is a legitimate science.
If someone can show me where i am wrong, than I will withdraw my
conclusions about what Bad Astronomy has done.


Just because Plasma Physics is a legitimate science doesn't mean that
everyone who posts on the internet about it is legitimately interested
in the science.

Have you read what J McC has written about Astronomy?
Have you read what Bad Astronomy has written about J McC ?

JMcC's website does not contain enough science to justify its headline
arguments.
Bad Astronomy does give enough science to criticise JMcC's headline
arguments.

To say that BA is an attack on Plasma Physics is indefensible; rather it
is a defence of Plasma Physics, against the bad physics of J McC.

Are you prepared to withdraw your conclusions about BA?



Please show me evidence with any manner of radio, gamma, x-ray, or
otherwise even optical if you can of such a 'Oort cloud' or 'comet belt'
whatever you wish to call it. Please any confirmation of the above
would be appreciated.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:26:40 GMT, Mad Scientist, a top posting
fruitcake wrote:

You must think that 'comets' are 'dirty snowballs'. LOL In fact any
astronomer who promotes such a funking big lie ought to drop down and
kiss their own ass.



Care to back that up?

Did God agree with you on this as well?



--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."