Bad Astronomy attacks Plasma Physicists

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:41:42 GMT, Mad Scientist
wrote:



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?


It's easy kook, you need to present evidence that the nature of comets
is other than the scientifically accepted view.

Of course, you never backl up with anything other than kook sites, if
you ever back things up at all.


--

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."

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:43:47 GMT, Mad Scientist
wrote:

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.


No, no. you have it wrong, kook. You need to justify your beleif that
McCanney is anything other than a complete nutcase, first.

Your continued failure to provide evidence for your favourite
fantasies is evidence of your kookiness.

How's God these days? Does he still agree with you?



--

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."

Wally Anglesea™ wrote:

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?


Care to back up the 'oort' cloud nonsense?

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 06:23:27 GMT, Mad Scientist, a nitwit
wrote:



Wally Anglesea™ wrote:

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?


Care to back up the 'oort' cloud nonsense?


You first, asswipe. Back up the nonsense you have posted that God
agrees with you. Once you have done that, you have the right to ask
others to backup the evidence.

Until then, you remain a coward and a blowhard kook.





--

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."

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

As I have pointed out to you MANY times, when you assert, you must
prove. That's the justfication for asking you to justify it. But no need
to fret. It's easy to accomplish. Just get a spectroscope and look for
yourself. Comets are cold.(you know... like ice). Oh and don't worry if
you don't have a spectroscope. Someone else has done it for you.

http://www.aas.org/publications/baas...ps2000/171.htm

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 06:23:27 +0000, Mad Scientist wrote:



Wally Anglesea wrote:

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?


Care to back up the 'oort' cloud nonsense?



I'll do it but don't don't let the facts get in yor kooky way....

http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/ia/nineplanets/kboc.html

Eric the half a bee wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 06:23:27 +0000, Mad Scientist wrote:



Wally Anglesea wrote:


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?


Care to back up the 'oort' cloud nonsense?




I'll do it but don't don't let the facts get in yor kooky way....

http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/ia/nineplanets/kboc.html


'The very existence of the Oort Cloud is somewhat questionable. Our only
evidence is very indirect.'

I suppose you kooks missed the above statement about a 'cloud of comets'
which has never been proven. Much like the 'dirty snowball' bull****.
Destined to go into extinction, along with the 'big bang' baloney.

Wally Anglesea™ wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 06:23:27 GMT, Mad Scientist, a nitwit
wrote:



Wally Anglesea™ wrote:


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?


Care to back up the 'oort' cloud nonsense?



You first, asswipe. Back up the nonsense you have posted that God
agrees with you. Once you have done that, you have the right to ask
others to backup the evidence.

Until then, you remain a coward and a blowhard kook.

I am not the one making the claim of an 'oort cloud' or 'Kuiper Belt'.
All that was provided is theoretical math based on the calculations of
known comet orbits. I have no problem with those calculations, nor do I
have a problem with a picture of a comet. But where is the 'cloud' or
'belt' - no such thing, so such picture and no evidence whatsoever. And
in fact theories regarding such only deal with known comets. So you
are in fact the coward and the blowhard kook. But since I'll give you
the benefit of the doubt over your sheer ignorance and arrogance
(oblivious people can't help but to be oblivious), please explain how
'dirty snowballs' are able to exist for centuries while consistently
orbiting so near to the sun? The 'comet cloud' is a theory plain and
simple and you have to concede that.

Only kooks promote there sacred-cow theories as fact.

Mad Scientist wrote:



Wally Anglesea™ wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 06:23:27 GMT, Mad Scientist, a nitwit
wrote:



Wally Anglesea™ wrote:


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?



Care to back up the 'oort' cloud nonsense?




You first, asswipe. Back up the nonsense you have posted that God
agrees with you. Once you have done that, you have the right to ask
others to backup the evidence.

Until then, you remain a coward and a blowhard kook.


I am not the one making the claim of an 'oort cloud' or 'Kuiper Belt'.
snip

No, but you were the first to bring comets not being 'dirty
snowballs'. It's your job to back that assertion up. Until you
do, no one is obligated to back up anything that followed.

Can you provide a normal-science explanation of why comets are
not 'dirty snowballs'?

--
Tom McDonald

Tom McDonald wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote:



Wally Anglesea™ wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 06:23:27 GMT, Mad Scientist, a nitwit
wrote:



Wally Anglesea™ wrote:


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?




Care to back up the 'oort' cloud nonsense?





You first, asswipe. Back up the nonsense you have posted that God
agrees with you. Once you have done that, you have the right to ask
others to backup the evidence.

Until then, you remain a coward and a blowhard kook.



I am not the one making the claim of an 'oort cloud' or 'Kuiper Belt'.

snip

No, but you were the first to bring comets not being 'dirty
snowballs'. It's your job to back that assertion up. Until you do, no
one is obligated to back up anything that followed.

Can you provide a normal-science explanation of why comets are not
'dirty snowballs'?

This coming from a guy who believes that 'slaves' transported 400 ton
blocks on reed boats.

The link that Bad Astronomy is insulting has a paper on why comets are
not 'dirty snowballs'. I see you haven't changed your debating style
very much since you didn't read anything on the underwater cities either.