OT: One more for the deniers

Re: OT: One more for the deniers


"J.P." <jpasano@hotmail,com > wrote in
...

> I do not believe the time lines they try to sell us..millions or years
> ago.BS.I don't even know if the earth was here a million years
> ago..

!!!... Get a telescope and look around...
no, never mind... forget it.

> and they cannot prove it so...that's the problem...I think corps
> should have never done anything that hurts the enviroment in the first
> place. The dumbass era is passed....

Apparently not.

It's an uphill battle, folks... some just will not
get it. You can drown a man, but you can't force
him to drink.
__
Steve
.

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

On Thu, 15 May 2008 03:52:11 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo,com > wrote:

>Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>> "J.P." <jpasano@hotmail,com > wrote in message
>> news:rk1m24l7bcf26luvg7p4kt279umqt8adsp@4ax,com ...
>>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 23:09:15 -0500, "Stephen Cowell"
>>> <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "J.P." <jpasano@hotmail,com > wrote in message
>>>> news:gnmk24l2r140bvh9dsgqtfvlj1gkr5735e@4ax,com ...
>>>>>> REBATE08COn Tue, 13 May 2008 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Keep Believing
>>>>>> In Lies
>>>>>> <lordkoos@hotmail,com > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> World Carbon Dioxide Levels Highest for 650,000 Years, Says US
>>>>>> Report By David Adam The Guardian UK
>>>>> EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total
>>>>> crap! Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived
>>>>> long enough to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY
>>>>> FUCKING THING! The end. Next thing you know some ignorant
>>>>
>>>> ... yes, ignorant being the operative term here. Don't
>>>> believe in dinosaurs? You Just Might Be One!
>>>>
>>> I don't believe flowers created dinos..like the fruitcake on PBS
>>> concluded live on tv one Sat morning...there is evidence of dinos
>>> exsisting..but the zillions years ago stuff is fucking bogus as a
>>> Mulay recording...
>>
>> Well, then... your above assertion
>>
>> "These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
>> to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!"
>>
>> was, to put it (comparatively) mildly, full of shit, wasn't it?
>> By about four orders of magnitude, looking back to the
>> Big Bang.
>>
>> They've extracted TRex proteins... turns out they taste (and
>> look) like chicken. We share a significant percentage of DNA
>> with plants... how did that happen? Guy in sky?
>>
>> Ice cores in both Greenland and Antarctica support the
>> consensus on CO2 accumulation... wishing won't make it
>> go away... passing the buck to our descendants won't
>> help either. Either you get Science, or you don't.
>> __
>> Steve
>
>Or you choose to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
>Can the flat earthers be far behind?
>
Where is the logic in your position...my position..just like good old
Spock..no proof=87% probability of bullshit

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

RichL wrote:
> Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
<snip>
> Or you choose to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
> Can the flat earthers be far behind?
>
>


The Earth *is* flat. Space is just curved.

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

Brannen TempleBrannen TempleOn Fri, 16 May 2008 17:31:07 -0400, Les
Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:

>RichL wrote:
>> Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
><snip>
>> Or you choose to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
>> Can the flat earthers be far behind?

>The Earth *is* flat. Space is just curved.

Joke, right? I mean, that's not exactly per GR. This group is a trip.

Re: OT: One more for the deniers


"RS" <RS@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:28gt249nrodc8bb3ots9qsfai28ol0kucb@4ax,com ...
> Brannen TempleBrannen TempleOn Fri, 16 May 2008 17:31:07 -0400, Les
> Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>
>>RichL wrote:
>>> Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>><snip>
>>> Or you choose to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
>>> Can the flat earthers be far behind?
>
>>The Earth *is* flat. Space is just curved.
>
> Joke, right? I mean, that's not exactly per GR. This group is a trip.

It's a big flat-earther argument... since the Earth is
the center of the Universe, the farther you get from
it, the more space curves.... think wide-angle lens
that gets more fish-eyed as you go farther. In
hyperbolic space the entire known U will fit in
something like an acre... I forget, have to watch
Not Knot again.
__
Steve
.

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

Stephen Cowell wrote:
> "RS" <RS@nospam,com > wrote in message
> news:28gt249nrodc8bb3ots9qsfai28ol0kucb@4ax,com ...
>> Brannen TempleBrannen TempleOn Fri, 16 May 2008 17:31:07 -0400, Les
>> Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>>
>>> RichL wrote:
>>>> Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> Or you choose to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
>>>> Can the flat earthers be far behind?
>>> The Earth *is* flat. Space is just curved.
>> Joke, right? I mean, that's not exactly per GR. This group is a trip.
>
> It's a big flat-earther argument...

Stephen - I'm kidding.

> since the Earth is
> the center of the Universe, the farther you get from
> it, the more space curves.... think wide-angle lens
> that gets more fish-eyed as you go farther.

Gad, that's bizarre.

> In
> hyperbolic space the entire known U will fit in
> something like an acre... I forget, have to watch
> Not Knot again.

Hyperbolic geometries are just Euclidean geometries
with the fifth postulate inverted - the angles
of a triangle always add to less than pi. That doesn't
say anything about about Earth centrist-ism, so they're
way off.


>
> Steve
> .
>
>

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT: One more for the deniers


"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in message
news:482f2732$0$3353$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> Stephen Cowell wrote:
>> "RS" <RS@nospam,com > wrote in message
>> news:28gt249nrodc8bb3ots9qsfai28ol0kucb@4ax,com ...
>>> Brannen TempleBrannen TempleOn Fri, 16 May 2008 17:31:07 -0400, Les
>>> Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>>>
>>>> RichL wrote:
>>>>> Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Or you choose to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
>>>>> Can the flat earthers be far behind?
>>>> The Earth *is* flat. Space is just curved.
>>> Joke, right? I mean, that's not exactly per GR. This group is a trip.
>>
>> It's a big flat-earther argument...
>
> Stephen - I'm kidding.

Naw! Really?

>> since the Earth is
>> the center of the Universe, the farther you get from
>> it, the more space curves.... think wide-angle lens
>> that gets more fish-eyed as you go farther.
>
> Gad, that's bizarre.

Some of them actually believe... others in the FES
are just in it to be contrary.

http :// www .alaska,net /~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

More odd than the OddFellows...


>> In
>> hyperbolic space the entire known U will fit in
>> something like an acre... I forget, have to watch
>> Not Knot again.
>
> Hyperbolic geometries are just Euclidean geometries
> with the fifth postulate inverted - the angles
> of a triangle always add to less than pi. That doesn't
> say anything about about Earth centrist-ism, so they're
> way off.

I just put that in for measure, good or bad... see if
you can catch Not Knot, its a very good short film.

http :// www .youtube,com /watch?v=AGLPbSMxSUM
http :// www .youtube,com /watch?v=MKwAS5omW_w

Glad to see it's now on YT.
__
Steve
.

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

RS wrote:
> Brannen TempleBrannen TempleOn Fri, 16 May 2008 17:31:07 -0400, Les
> Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>
>> RichL wrote:
>>> Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Or you choose to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
>>> Can the flat earthers be far behind?
>
>> The Earth *is* flat. Space is just curved.
>
> Joke, right? I mean, that's not exactly per GR. This group is a trip.


Joke yes.

But the oblate spheroid shape of the planet is due to
GR, in how it was "constructed". An object in orbit follows a spacetime
geodesic.

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
> RS wrote:
>> Brannen TempleBrannen TempleOn Fri, 16 May 2008 17:31:07 -0400, Les
>> Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>>
>>> RichL wrote:
>>>> Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> Or you choose to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
>>>> Can the flat earthers be far behind?
>>
>>> The Earth *is* flat. Space is just curved.
>>
>> Joke, right? I mean, that's not exactly per GR. This group is a trip.
>
>
> Joke yes.
>
> But the oblate spheroid shape of the planet is due to
> GR, in how it was "constructed". An object in orbit follows a
> spacetime geodesic.

My recollection is that the oblate spheriodal shape is understandable
purely in pre-relativistic physics in terms of the equilibrium shape
achieved by a rotating blob of fluid.

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:59:37 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo,com > wrote:

>Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>> RS wrote:
>>> Brannen TempleBrannen TempleOn Fri, 16 May 2008 17:31:07 -0400, Les
>>> Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>>>
>>>> RichL wrote:
>>>>> Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Or you choose to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
>>>>> Can the flat earthers be far behind?
>>>
>>>> The Earth *is* flat. Space is just curved.
>>>
>>> Joke, right? I mean, that's not exactly per GR. This group is a trip.
>>
>>
>> Joke yes.
>>
>> But the oblate spheroid shape of the planet is due to
>> GR, in how it was "constructed". An object in orbit follows a
>> spacetime geodesic.
>
>My recollection is that the oblate spheriodal shape is understandable
>purely in pre-relativistic physics in terms of the equilibrium shape
>achieved by a rotating blob of fluid.

Yeah, formation should be primarily Newtonian, though you're the
authority here. There may be a tiny bit of relativistic physics in
play in that massive bodies can pull space-time as they travel ("Frame
dragging", Lense, Thirring). Very small factor by comparison though,
even for something as large as the Earth.

http :// www -history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Newton_bucket.html

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

RS <RS@nospam,com > wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 21:59:37 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo,com > wrote:

>> My recollection is that the oblate spheriodal shape is understandable
>> purely in pre-relativistic physics in terms of the equilibrium shape
>> achieved by a rotating blob of fluid.
>
> Yeah, formation should be primarily Newtonian, though you're the
> authority here. There may be a tiny bit of relativistic physics in
> play in that massive bodies can pull space-time as they travel ("Frame
> dragging", Lense, Thirring). Very small factor by comparison though,
> even for something as large as the Earth.
>
> http :// www -history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Newton_bucket.html

Interesting article!
Turns out that my suggestion about the rotating fluid held together by
gravitational force is qualitatively correct, but to get the "right"
answer you have to account for the variation in density with depth into
the earth:
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth
(Yeah, I cheated and looked it up.)

"Determining the exact figure of the Earth is not only a geodetic
operation or a task of geometry, but is also related to geophysics.
Without any idea of the Earth's interior, we can state a "constant
density" of 5.515 g/cm³ and, according to theoretical arguments (see
Leonhard Euler, Albert Wangerin, etc.), such a body rotating like the
Earth would have an flattening of 1:230.
"In fact the measured flattening is 1:298.25, which is more similar to a
sphere and a strong argument that the Earth's core is very compact.
Therefore the density must be a function of the depth, reaching from
about 2.7 g/cm³ at the surface (rock density of granite, limestone
etc. - see regional geology) up to approximately 15 within the inner
core. Modern seismology yields a value of 16 g/cm³ (iron or hydrogen) at
the center of the earth."

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

RichL wrote:
> Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>> RS wrote:
>>> Brannen TempleBrannen TempleOn Fri, 16 May 2008 17:31:07 -0400, Les
>>> Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>>>
>>>> RichL wrote:
>>>>> Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Or you choose to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
>>>>> Can the flat earthers be far behind?
>>>> The Earth *is* flat. Space is just curved.
>>> Joke, right? I mean, that's not exactly per GR. This group is a trip.
>>
>> Joke yes.
>>
>> But the oblate spheroid shape of the planet is due to
>> GR, in how it was "constructed". An object in orbit follows a
>> spacetime geodesic.
>
> My recollection is that the oblate spheriodal shape is understandable
> purely in pre-relativistic physics in terms of the equilibrium shape
> achieved by a rotating blob of fluid.
>
>


Right - I don't mean "why it's not a perfect sphere", just
that GR is about gravity.

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT: One more for the deniers


"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in message
news:48312df4$0$30188$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> RichL wrote:
>> Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>>> RS wrote:
>>>> Brannen TempleBrannen TempleOn Fri, 16 May 2008 17:31:07 -0400, Les
>>>> Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> RichL wrote:
>>>>>> Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Or you choose to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
>>>>>> Can the flat earthers be far behind?
>>>>> The Earth *is* flat. Space is just curved.
>>>> Joke, right? I mean, that's not exactly per GR. This group is a trip.
>>>
>>> Joke yes.
>>>
>>> But the oblate spheroid shape of the planet is due to
>>> GR, in how it was "constructed". An object in orbit follows a
>>> spacetime geodesic.
>>
>> My recollection is that the oblate spheriodal shape is understandable
>> purely in pre-relativistic physics in terms of the equilibrium shape
>> achieved by a rotating blob of fluid.
>
> Right - I don't mean "why it's not a perfect sphere", just
> that GR is about gravity.

GR shows up in Earth's orbit as anomaly, IIRC.
Perhaps you confused the two.
__
Steve
.

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

Stephen Cowell wrote:
> "Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote in message
> news:48312df4$0$30188$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>> RichL wrote:
>>> Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>>>> RS wrote:
>>>>> Brannen TempleBrannen TempleOn Fri, 16 May 2008 17:31:07 -0400, Les
>>>>> Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr,com > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> RichL wrote:
>>>>>>> Stephen Cowell <scowell@sbcglobal,net > wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Or you choose to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
>>>>>>> Can the flat earthers be far behind?
>>>>>> The Earth *is* flat. Space is just curved.
>>>>> Joke, right? I mean, that's not exactly per GR. This group is a trip.
>>>> Joke yes.
>>>>
>>>> But the oblate spheroid shape of the planet is due to
>>>> GR, in how it was "constructed". An object in orbit follows a
>>>> spacetime geodesic.
>>> My recollection is that the oblate spheriodal shape is understandable
>>> purely in pre-relativistic physics in terms of the equilibrium shape
>>> achieved by a rotating blob of fluid.
>> Right - I don't mean "why it's not a perfect sphere", just
>> that GR is about gravity.
>
> GR shows up in Earth's orbit as anomaly, IIRC.
> Perhaps you confused the two.
>
> Steve
> .
>
>

Probably. Really, it just felt funny not saying GR about gravitational
stuff, even if Newton is sufficient to explain that particular
phenomenon.

--
Les Cargill

Re: OT: One more for the deniers

> EVERY TIME I read some horseshit such as this I know it is total crap!
> Anyone see why? These stupid mutherfuckers haven't lived long enough
> to do research on nearly 3/4 of a million years of ANY FUCKING THING!
> The end. Next thing you know some ignorant cocksucker will be on PBS
> trying to sell the flowers made dinosaurs line of crap.And the carbon
> dating thing goes outta whack after a few thousand years also.
> Millions of years my ass! Mulay shit!
Anyone who doesn't believe the Earth is warming up due to CO2
emmissions is just plain stupid.

Mr Soul