Earth w/o Moon / by Brad Guth

On May 21, 1:44*pm, David Johnston wrote:
He doesn't believe you have been recording them for 110,000 years. *

An easy assumption.

Supercomputers require actual data to put into them.

Garbage in = garbage out.

On May 21, 2:40 pm, wrote:
On May 21, 1:44 pm, David Johnston wrote:

He doesn't believe you have been recording them for 110,000 years.

An easy assumption.

Supercomputers require actual data to put into them.

Garbage in = garbage out.

Then merely keep changing the garbage input until the garbage output
works, just like in most PC/MAC software versions of orbital and
impact simulators can manage without ever blowing out their CPUs.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 21, 1:44 pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 11:48:48 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth



wrote:
On May 21, 11:14 am, wrote:
On May 21, 5:00 am, BradGuth wrote:

As of lately it's looking more like 105~110 thousand years per cycle,
or let us say per encounter.

There's no way to know how long cycles last without at least having
one (not a simulated one) plotted. So Guth is saying he has over 110
thousand years of movement data.

I can see why so few people take him seriously. Sad because here's a
guy who at least appears to be an extremely critical thinker and
definitely thinks outside the box. And double sad since critical and
eccentric thinkers are an extremely rare breed.

Good grief. Get a fresh grip on your mainstream status quo private
parts.

You really can't hardly think inside, much less outside the box, can
you.

It seems now you don't even believe in stellar motions.

He doesn't believe you have been recording them for 110,000 years.

Are you

Mormon, or something worse?

You know, there's this spendy though nifty thing that's public owned
and otherwise fully public funded, and it's called a supercomputer
(including all of the necessary physics based software).

Supercomputers require actual data to put into them. You don't have
it.

I have enough to start with. (we polish on the fly)
.. - BG

In article
,
wrote:

On May 21, 5:00*am, BradGuth wrote:
As of lately it's looking more like 105~110 thousand years per cycle,
or let us say per encounter.

There's no way to know how long cycles last without at least having
one (not a simulated one) plotted. So Guth is saying he has over 110
thousand years of movement data.

I can see why so few people take him seriously. Sad because here's a
guy who at least appears to be an extremely critical thinker and
definitely thinks outside the box.

Brad thinks outside the box merely because he doesn't know where the box
is or what it contains.

And double sad since critical and
eccentric thinkers are an extremely rare breed.

The problem with Brad's thinking is that he's not exactly critical of
mainstream theories; he doesn't understand them enough to lend any sort
of support to his own. And he is in no way critical of his own theories,
and doesn't deal well with people pointing out flaws in them.

No, no, no, don't go there! I know you're about to unleash a wailing
tempest of criticism about how I can't accept criticism of theories I
like. Indeed, I have often asked people to clarify their meanings on
such criticisms. The usual response is either none at all or some verbal
handwaving that amounts to nothing. If someone can point out that I am
indeed in error by providing facts and solid reasoning, I accept that.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

On May 21, 1:44 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
josephus wrote:

the big whack was a mars sized object. (according to one of the
theories) and it deposited its core with us and scattered lighter
debris from it and us in a near earth ring.

According to the theory, the two cores melded into one after the impact.

Pat

As per usual, the key word: theory
.. - BG

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On May 21, 1:44 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
josephus wrote:

the big whack was a mars sized object. (according to one of the
theories) and it deposited its core with us and scattered lighter
debris from it and us in a near earth ring.

According to the theory, the two cores melded into one after the impact.

Pat

As per usual, the key word: theory

I wonder if you are using the same definition of "theory" as everyone
else in scientific world does. Enlighten us: tell us what it really
means.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

On May 21, 9:26 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On May 21, 1:44 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
josephus wrote:

the big whack was a mars sized object. (according to one of the
theories) and it deposited its core with us and scattered lighter
debris from it and us in a near earth ring.

According to the theory, the two cores melded into one after the impact.

Pat

As per usual, the key word: theory

I wonder if you are using the same definition of "theory" as everyone
else in scientific world does. Enlighten us: tell us what it really
means.

It means giving it your best subjective swag. If it was based upon
purely objective science, it would not be a "theory".
.. - Brad Guth

On Wed, 21 May 2008 22:08:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On May 21, 9:26 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On May 21, 1:44 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
josephus wrote:

the big whack was a mars sized object. (according to one of the
theories) and it deposited its core with us and scattered lighter
debris from it and us in a near earth ring.

According to the theory, the two cores melded into one after the impact.

Pat

As per usual, the key word: theory

I wonder if you are using the same definition of "theory" as everyone
else in scientific world does. Enlighten us: tell us what it really
means.

It means giving it your best subjective swag. If it was based upon
purely objective science, it would not be a "theory".

Oh really? So what would it be then?

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On May 21, 9:26 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On May 21, 1:44 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
josephus wrote:

the big whack was a mars sized object. (according to one of the
theories) and it deposited its core with us and scattered lighter
debris from it and us in a near earth ring.

According to the theory, the two cores melded into one after the impact.

Pat

As per usual, the key word: theory

I wonder if you are using the same definition of "theory" as everyone
else in scientific world does. Enlighten us: tell us what it really
means.

It means giving it your best subjective swag. If it was based upon
purely objective science, it would not be a "theory".

Well, that definition is not entirely surprising. It may surprise you to
learn that ...

"In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of
a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or
observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through
experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It
follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not
necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple
dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the
planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this
behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also
gravitation), and the theory of general relativity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

What is surprising is that even with this sort of information so freely
available, some people pretend it is unavailable.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

BradGuth wrote:
On May 21, 9:26 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On May 21, 1:44 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
josephus wrote:
the big whack was a mars sized object. (according to one of the
theories) and it deposited its core with us and scattered lighter
debris from it and us in a near earth ring.
According to the theory, the two cores melded into one after the impact.
Pat
As per usual, the key word: theory
I wonder if you are using the same definition of "theory" as everyone
else in scientific world does. Enlighten us: tell us what it really
means.

It means giving it your best subjective swag. If it was based upon
purely objective science, it would not be a "theory".
. - Brad Guth

so by your definition the theory of gravity would be a guess. if you
really think the theory of relativity was just a guess. you do not know
any physics nor do you know why it was immediately tested at an
eclipse. I have a book that says radio telescopes measure the
distances from the sun as deviations in position. those radio
telescopes do not have a problem looking at the sun. so that "theory"
is buttressed with lots and lots of data. Einstein was studying
physics. his paper on Brownian motion contained mathematical "proof" of
the reasoning and the process. that is theory. not your objective
data. the current effort is to find a theory that accounts for QM and
physics. it is true that both cannot be true. either one or both are
wrong. a theory is a lot more robust than your definition. and even if
it is wrong, it contains data and structures of data. and even if it
is our "best guess" it still has to EXPLAIN all the data with NO
exceptions. that is what a theory really is and why you dont have one.

Einstein published his mathematics (real mathematics) where is your
math. Snicker. snort. roflmao!

josephus
--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter,
"Everybody is ignorant but on
different subjects"
--Will Rogers
Its not what you know
that gets you in trouble
its what you know that ain so.
--josh billings.