A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Earth and Jupiter are Similar



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 29th 18, 11:42 PM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Earth and Jupiter are Similar

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 1:56:49 PM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 3:23:07 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 1:03:06 PM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 2:25:12 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:56:12 AM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 9:43:22 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:28:49 PM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:

They are both rocky worlds with an atmosphere.

Jupiter is 99%+ gas,


No, Jupiter is mostly liquid.

No, that is incorrect. Once again, you didn't read the links. If your claim is true you should not have any problem supplying your own links in support of your assertion, and understand that assertions are not proof.

and "if" it has a rocky core it is very small. We don't know...yet.

It is not a rocky core. It is the rocky surface of Jupiter.

Unfortunately, I can no longer use my Bull**** Meter since you have fatally overloaded it. Jupiter is almost all clouds. Read the links. Supply your own links of evidence, if you can... but you can't, because you have made this up. Why? I don't know.

And they both have an ocean.

Evidence for an ocean on Jupiter? I don't think so...

All astronomers know Jupiter has an immense ocean of liquid hydrogen.

Incorrect again. Jupiter has a core of 'degenerate' hydrogen, not liquid, there is a huge difference between the 2. If you were actually educated in physics you would certainly know this


Either

you are programmed to oppose me at every corner or you are not very bright.

Probably both. I'm messing with your head and giving you a new perspective on

things.

New perspectives are great and often lead to new theories, but they must be back-up with evidence in the form of experiments and/or observations, which you cannot provide. Your guesses about 'how things are' are simply not true. they are just a figment of your imagination... which also has no place in science.

Both atheists and theists alike are none too swift with different perspectives.

Well, everyone is either a theist or an atheist, and perspective has nothing to offer to science without evidence.

Never mind. I could throw insults back at you but I am not going to. That is

not why I am here.


Asking you show evidence to support your claims is not insulting you. I am almost always offering evidence for the things I claim, which is what virtually every scientist in the world is required to do if his theories are to be taken seriously.

So... why are you here?


I'm here to help. I know some like you don't want help but I am here to help

anyway. Once the darts start flying all that is going to happen

is disaster for both parties.

I don't speak your language; you don't speak mine. So how can we even hope to

communicate until we have a common language? Evidence to me can be a

crystalizing sentence derived from other things known. But such is plainly not

evidence to you. To you all evidence has to be given the way it is normally

given: by test tubes, by chemical reactions, by approved measurements, by math

equations and so on.


So you think there is something wrong with 'normal' evidence? Why is that? Is it because you don't understand 'normal' evidence?

Can you explain what you mean by "crystalizing sentence derived from other things known."?
  #12  
Old November 30th 18, 12:21 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Mark Earnest[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,124
Default Earth and Jupiter are Similar

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:42:03 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 1:56:49 PM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 3:23:07 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 1:03:06 PM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 2:25:12 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:56:12 AM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 9:43:22 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:28:49 PM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:

They are both rocky worlds with an atmosphere.

Jupiter is 99%+ gas,


No, Jupiter is mostly liquid.

No, that is incorrect. Once again, you didn't read the links. If your claim is true you should not have any problem supplying your own links in support of your assertion, and understand that assertions are not proof..

and "if" it has a rocky core it is very small. We don't know....yet.

It is not a rocky core. It is the rocky surface of Jupiter.

Unfortunately, I can no longer use my Bull**** Meter since you have fatally overloaded it. Jupiter is almost all clouds. Read the links. Supply your own links of evidence, if you can... but you can't, because you have made this up. Why? I don't know.

And they both have an ocean.

Evidence for an ocean on Jupiter? I don't think so...

All astronomers know Jupiter has an immense ocean of liquid hydrogen.

Incorrect again. Jupiter has a core of 'degenerate' hydrogen, not liquid, there is a huge difference between the 2. If you were actually educated in physics you would certainly know this


Either

you are programmed to oppose me at every corner or you are not very bright.

Probably both. I'm messing with your head and giving you a new perspective on

things.

New perspectives are great and often lead to new theories, but they must be back-up with evidence in the form of experiments and/or observations, which you cannot provide. Your guesses about 'how things are' are simply not true. they are just a figment of your imagination... which also has no place in science.

Both atheists and theists alike are none too swift with different perspectives.

Well, everyone is either a theist or an atheist, and perspective has nothing to offer to science without evidence.

Never mind. I could throw insults back at you but I am not going to. That is

not why I am here.

Asking you show evidence to support your claims is not insulting you. I am almost always offering evidence for the things I claim, which is what virtually every scientist in the world is required to do if his theories are to be taken seriously.

So... why are you here?


I'm here to help. I know some like you don't want help but I am here to help

anyway. Once the darts start flying all that is going to happen

is disaster for both parties.

I don't speak your language; you don't speak mine. So how can we even hope to

communicate until we have a common language? Evidence to me can be a

crystalizing sentence derived from other things known. But such is plainly not

evidence to you. To you all evidence has to be given the way it is normally

given: by test tubes, by chemical reactions, by approved measurements, by math

equations and so on.


So you think there is something wrong with 'normal' evidence? Why is that? Is it because you don't understand 'normal' evidence?


There is nothing wrong with normal evidence; it was good for its time. But it

is outdated: there are better, much faster and much more available forms of

evidence.



Can you explain what you mean by "crystalizing sentence derived from other things known."?


I also took a course in logic in college and made an A in it.

A "Crystalizing sentence derived from other things known" is nothing but

logic. Logic is based on known premises. Each premise is concluded from a

preceding premise which finally has a root in some ultimate premise, whatever

that is. Don't ask me to explain what I mean by "whatever that is." It

does not convert into modern English or into any language known

to man. That is how I keep coming with all this stuff thought crazy--

because I know logic and I know what is meant by preceding and ultimate

premise. It is crazy because no one understands it or how I came up with

it.
  #13  
Old November 30th 18, 03:13 AM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Earth and Jupiter are Similar

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 3:21:47 PM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:42:03 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:


So you think there is something wrong with 'normal' evidence? Why is that? Is it because you don't understand 'normal' evidence?


There is nothing wrong with normal evidence; it was good for its time. But it

is outdated: there are better, much faster and much more available forms of

evidence.


What kind of 'new' evidence could possibly be "better, faster and much more available" than experimental evidence? Better than observations?

Can you explain what you mean by "crystalizing sentence derived from other things known."?


I also took a course in logic in college and made an A in it.

A "Crystalizing sentence derived from other things known" is nothing but

logic. Logic is based on known premises. Each premise is concluded from a

preceding premise which finally has a root in some ultimate premise, whatever

that is.


Yeah "whatever that is", that's 'logic'.

Don't ask me to explain what I mean by "whatever that is."


Of course, not, why would anyone need you to explain what the 'ultimate premise' might be, after all, it couldn't possibly be important, right?


It does not convert into modern English or into any language known

to man.


Well, THAT makes perfect sense, why didn't I already know this? I must be really stupid!

That is how I keep coming with all this stuff thought crazy--

because I know logic and I know what is meant by preceding and ultimate

premise.


.... except that you can't possibly explain it because you have already SAID ... "Don't ask me to explain what I mean by "whatever that is."

It is crazy because no one understands it or how I came up with it.


.... and that obviously includes *you*.

You sound just like Reagan when he said: " I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

You were absolutely right when you said... "It is crazy..." because it IS crazy.

I would really like to see your logic chain which leads you to claim that "Jupiter is mostly liquid" and "All astronomers know Jupiter has an immense ocean of liquid hydrogen". After all, I'm an astronomer and I don't know that!

Wow, just wow...
  #14  
Old November 30th 18, 05:15 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Mark Earnest[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,124
Default Earth and Jupiter are Similar

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:13:50 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 3:21:47 PM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:42:03 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:


So you think there is something wrong with 'normal' evidence? Why is that? Is it because you don't understand 'normal' evidence?


There is nothing wrong with normal evidence; it was good for its time. But it

is outdated: there are better, much faster and much more available forms of

evidence.


What kind of 'new' evidence could possibly be "better, faster and much more available" than experimental evidence? Better than observations?

Can you explain what you mean by "crystalizing sentence derived from other things known."?


I also took a course in logic in college and made an A in it.

A "Crystalizing sentence derived from other things known" is nothing but

logic. Logic is based on known premises. Each premise is concluded from a

preceding premise which finally has a root in some ultimate premise, whatever

that is.


Yeah "whatever that is", that's 'logic'.

Don't ask me to explain what I mean by "whatever that is."


Of course, not, why would anyone need you to explain what the 'ultimate premise' might be, after all, it couldn't possibly be important, right?


It does not convert into modern English or into any language known

to man.


Well, THAT makes perfect sense, why didn't I already know this? I must be really stupid!

That is how I keep coming with all this stuff thought crazy--

because I know logic and I know what is meant by preceding and ultimate

premise.


... except that you can't possibly explain it because you have already SAID ... "Don't ask me to explain what I mean by "whatever that is."

It is crazy because no one understands it or how I came up with it.


... and that obviously includes *you*.

You sound just like Reagan when he said: " I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

You were absolutely right when you said... "It is crazy..." because it IS crazy.

I would really like to see your logic chain which leads you to claim that "Jupiter is mostly liquid" and "All astronomers know Jupiter has an immense ocean of liquid hydrogen". After all, I'm an astronomer and I don't know that!

Wow, just wow...


I got it from an old textbook from my local library about the planets. It shows a drawing of the layers of Jupiter and the biggest layer is labeled to be liquid hydrogen.

It is also in Wikipedia that you can look up. "Jupiter is thought to consist of a dense core with a mixture of elements, a surrounding layer of liquid metallic hydrogen with some helium..."

The layer is the largest layer. There is your ocean of liquid hydrogen. There is your Jupiter being mostly liquid.

This comes from the premise of textbooks from the library and Wikipedia being credible. They are usually credible anyway. We just know that. That is why it is the ultimate premise. There is no real way to explain ultimate premise except to say ultimate premise is when we just know something without any way of saying how we know. The chain of premises has to be rooted somewhere.

  #15  
Old November 30th 18, 08:18 PM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Earth and Jupiter are Similar

On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 8:15:35 AM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:

There is no real way to explain ultimate premise except to say ultimate premise is when we just know something without any way of saying how we know.


And you think this is actually science?
  #16  
Old November 30th 18, 09:14 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Mark Earnest[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,124
Default Earth and Jupiter are Similar

On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 1:18:23 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 8:15:35 AM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:

There is no real way to explain ultimate premise except to say ultimate premise is when we just know something without any way of saying how we know.


And you think this is actually science?


Yes it is science because this is the only way an ultimate premise can exist. Next time you know something but do not exactly know how you know you will understand. An ultimate premise has no previous premise but stands on its own. A fact is a fact and one day you will recognize them on sight.

  #17  
Old December 1st 18, 03:28 AM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Earth and Jupiter are Similar

On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:14:23 PM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:

Next time you know something but do not exactly know how you know you will understand.


WHAT???

A fact is a fact and one day you will recognize them on sight.


Well, that is about the dumbest claim I have ever heard! A fact is a fact? Really? And *you* can recognize facts on sight? Wouldn't this mean that you are never wrong?

Didn't claim, in another post, that things can travel faster than light? Is that a fact that you recognized on sight, so it must be right?

Sheeesh!

  #18  
Old December 1st 18, 10:49 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Daniel60
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 307
Default Earth and Jupiter are Similar

Mark Earnest wrote on 1/12/2018 3:15 AM:

Snip

This comes from the premise of textbooks from the library and
Wikipedia being credible. They are usually credible anyway. We just
know that. That is why it is the ultimate premise. There is no real
way to explain ultimate premise except to say ultimate premise is
when we just know something without any way of saying how we know.
The chain of premises has to be rooted somewhere.

I would suggest that the "real way to explain ultimate premise" is to
call it *A GUESS* !!

--
Daniel
  #19  
Old December 1st 18, 03:28 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Mark Earnest[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,124
Default Earth and Jupiter are Similar

On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 8:28:03 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:14:23 PM UTC-8, Mark Earnest wrote:

Next time you know something but do not exactly know how you know you will understand.


WHAT???

A fact is a fact and one day you will recognize them on sight.


Well, that is about the dumbest claim I have ever heard! A fact is a fact? Really? And *you* can recognize facts on sight? Wouldn't this mean that you are never wrong?

Didn't claim, in another post, that things can travel faster than light? Is that a fact that you recognized on sight, so it must be right?


Has conversation turned into one about who is better? I did not know we were

competing.

  #20  
Old December 1st 18, 03:29 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Mark Earnest[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,124
Default Earth and Jupiter are Similar

On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 3:49:30 AM UTC-6, Daniel60 wrote:
Mark Earnest wrote on 1/12/2018 3:15 AM:

Snip

This comes from the premise of textbooks from the library and
Wikipedia being credible. They are usually credible anyway. We just
know that. That is why it is the ultimate premise. There is no real
way to explain ultimate premise except to say ultimate premise is
when we just know something without any way of saying how we know.
The chain of premises has to be rooted somewhere.

I would suggest that the "real way to explain ultimate premise" is to
call it *A GUESS* !!


Yes an ultimate premise can be a guess, one that turns out to be right.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Earth and Jupiter are Similar Mark Earnest[_2_] Misc 0 November 29th 18 01:24 AM
Many Characteristics of Mars Similar to Earth. Marvin the Martian Policy 0 July 3rd 09 02:29 AM
Do Earth rocks have similar zig-zag lines? Lin Liangtai Astronomy Misc 1 March 23rd 08 07:05 PM
Do Earth rocks have similar zig-zag lines? Lin Liangtai Amateur Astronomy 1 March 23rd 08 07:05 PM
Study of Martian Meteorite Reveals Markings Similar to Bacteria-EtchedRocks on Earth (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 March 24th 06 01:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.