"...they're made of asbestos"

[The Starmaker]

Asbestos?

"the closest you can get to Earth in location and size"

Are the talking about inches when they refer to size?
Is location mean it's in outer space?

"But the Earthlike planet is so hot its surface may be like molten lava.."


What's Earthlike about it? It's summer over there? Unusual weather we're having...


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444734804578062442077127834.html

"not-too-hot, not-too-cold"

Baby talk again. Are they looking for a planet that is always 72 degrees all year long?

not-too-hot, not-too-cold.

I'll tell you what is Earth-like. There is nothing Earth-like..like the Earth, nothing. Ask a snowflake.






"If there are any inhabitants there, they're made of asbestos," joked Mr. Shostak.
These guys tell jokes?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444734804578062442077127834.html



How can you tell when 'these guys' are joking?


Someone says "Like a Big bang" as a joke.....it's called Science!


They start give 'joke' lectures....

"What caused The Big Bang?"

Hey!, It WAS WAS JUST A JOKE!!!!

Someone says "a big bang" as a joke, and now it's required reading in skool.

Have you ever seen a scientist say something that 'wasn't funny' and everybody in class laughs thinking it was a joke?

Then the scientists says, "Don't laugh, it's the truth!!!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt7gPCioqTg



Okay, if you hear or read someone say "Earth-like", you can laugh cause it ain't true.



The Starmaker




"They are already talking about how to speed up a 25 trillion-mile rocket trip there."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444734804578062442077127834.html


trillion?

is that a joke?

Is Mars Earth-like? I mean, it's a little cold there but not that cold...a little colder than the north pole...did you see the movie "The Thing"?

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Oct 17, 1:29 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:


> "What caused The Big Bang?"

Binders of women.

[The Starmaker]

Wait a minute here! I thought the headline read Earth-Like, it reads Earth-Sized!

When did they come up with that new werd?

"But the Earthlike planet is so hot its surface may be like molten lava.

Life cannot survive the 2,200 degree heat of the planet, so close to its star that it circles it every few days."


The like reads "Earthlike"....

is 2,200 degree heat Earthlike?

[The Starmaker]

wiki doesn't have it's own definition of it...
The page "Earth-size" does not exist.

that means the martians are getting lazy...

[The Starmaker]

You can imagine the journalist
trying to understand what 'these science guys'
are talking about...

Why is it earthlike?
It's the same size as earth!
So, it's earthsize?
It's earthlike!
But, it's 2,200 degree heat?
It's the samesize as earth!
So, I should write it's
40,000km in circumference?
No!
Why not?
It's not the same size!

[The Starmaker]

Is it round like earth?
Yes, it's Earth-Round!


The minute 'these people' talk 'earthlike'...
they start putting people in it:

"If there are any inhabitants there, they're made of asbestos," joked Mr. Shostak.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444734804578062442077127834.html

it doesn't make any difference if
Life cannot survive the 2,200 degree heat of the planet..

they will manage somehow to come up with people living in it.

You cannot trust 'these people'. I wonder...what is their drug of choice, cocaine or medical maryruanna.


If they can...imagine, inhabitants..made of asbestos, living on a 2,200 degree heat planet...
then what will 'these people' imagine when they find a 72 degree planet?


Another Earth?


The Starmaker



Does anybody really understand what the words 'another earth' really means? I don't think so...

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 17, 10:29 am, The Starmaker wrote:

> Then the scientists says, "Don't laugh, it's the truth!!!!"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt7gPCioqTg

What Feynman presented is within the methodology of scientific method:

** Start with a postulate or postulates.

** Derive predictions based on this postulate or postulates.

** Find experimental verification(s) to the prediction(s).

If experiments cannot verify the prediction(s), the postulate(s) is/
are wrong in the first place. It does not matter if the person making
the postulate in the first is Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the liar or Tom Roberts. <shrug>

Now, let’s apply this simple scientific methodology to Special
Relativity.

** It starts out with the Lorentz transform with two very random
assumptions in the history of science. The assumption about the
validity of the principle of relativity is very questionable already
since all other of mathematical models (except the Galilean transform
modeling light as ballistic classical particles) able to explain the
null results of the MMX say the principle of relativity is false.
<shrug>

** Predictions of Special Relativity call out for the twins’ paradox
in which Special Relativity should have been abandoned at that
moment. Instead, the self-styled physicists have spun the bullshit
into a myth where Special Relativity is now a religion. <shrug>

** There have been all sorts of experiments that have satisfied the
mythical predictions of Special Relativity. At this stage, the self-
styled physicists, either with very shallow brain power or religious
hardline rivaling any ancient priests trying to stay in power, have
just gone berserk supporting Special Relativity. Is the celebration
too premature? <shrug>

At Caltech, Koobee Wublee met Feynman in his later years of life, and
He wished Feynman would be around to finish the discussion he raised
in the YouTube video. So, let’s re-examine the scenario more
thoroughly. We have:

** Prediction 1 (Special Relativity)
** Its bogus predictions
** Convincing experimental verifications

** Prediction 2 (Voigt, Larmor’s, or Lorentz’s transforms)
** Their equally bogus predictions
** Convincingly same experimental verifications

Now, prediction 1 is an antithesis to prediction 2 and vice versa
where both predictions cannot co-exist with each other. The same
experiments that have verified Special Relativity also have verified
its antitheses. So, can one say Special Relativity is thoroughly
verified by experiments? Is it a very difficult question? It
apparently is so among the self-styled physicists. So, before
answering this question, let’s entertain the two postulates below.

** Flying pigs do exist.
** Flying pigs don’t exist.

Observations do find pigs exist. Shall we say the postulate that
flying pigs do exist is valid based on that observation? No. We must
find flying pigs to verify either of the postulates. This should be
common sense.

Back to the experiments that have verified both Special Relativity and
its antitheses, the same conclusion should be applied that these
experiments do not validate Special Relativity at all. One must find
experiments to verify one thesis and invalidate all others to conclude
along the line of scientific method, but it has never been done
regarding Special Relativity.

So, what is the excuse of the self-styled physicists to make such
blunders? You can say:

“We are just fvcking stupid not able to understand and comprehend what
scientific method represents, or we are just ignorant of other
mathematical models out there capable of satisfying the null results
of the Michelson-Morley experiments. <shrug>”

Or you can say:

“Fvck you, Koobee Wublee. Experimental verifications are just for
shows to allow us, the self-styled physicists, to rule as shamans
promoting the mysticisms of Special Relativity. We like to dumb down
the mass and spread mathemaGics following the footsteps of these
mythical shamans in the past. <shrug>”

So, what is it? Please advise. <shrug>

[Paul Colquhoun]

So, they have a theory with lots of supporting evidence. Don't see a
problem so far.

| At Caltech, Koobee Wublee met Feynman in his later years of life, and
| He wished Feynman would be around to finish the discussion he raised
| in the YouTube video. So, let’s re-examine the scenario more
| thoroughly. We have:
|
| ** Prediction 1 (Special Relativity)

Possibly you mean "hypothesis" here instead of "prediction"? It would
make things clearer later if you weren't using "prediction" for two
different purposes.

| ** Its bogus predictions
| ** Convincing experimental verifications
|
| ** Prediction 2 (Voigt, Larmor’s, or Lorentz’s transforms)

Hypothesis 2

| ** Their equally bogus predictions
| ** Convincingly same experimental verifications
|
| Now, prediction 1 is an antithesis to prediction 2 and vice versa
| where both predictions cannot co-exist with each other. The same

See, do you mean hypothesis 1 & 2 here, or the (bogus) predictions they make?
From the use of the numbers, I'm guessing you mean the hypothesises.

| experiments that have verified Special Relativity also have verified
| its antitheses. So, can one say Special Relativity is thoroughly
| verified by experiments? Is it a very difficult question? It
| apparently is so among the self-styled physicists. So, before
| answering this question, let’s entertain the two postulates below.
|
| ** Flying pigs do exist.
| ** Flying pigs don’t exist.
|
| Observations do find pigs exist. Shall we say the postulate that
| flying pigs do exist is valid based on that observation? No. We must
| find flying pigs to verify either of the postulates. This should be
| common sense.

Actually, finding flying pigs would only verify the first postulate. It
would falsify the second postulate.

| Back to the experiments that have verified both Special Relativity and
| its antitheses, the same conclusion should be applied that these
| experiments do not validate Special Relativity at all. One must find
| experiments to verify one thesis and invalidate all others to conclude
| along the line of scientific method, but it has never been done
| regarding Special Relativity.
|
| So, what is the excuse of the self-styled physicists to make such
| blunders? You can say:
|
| “We are just fvcking stupid not able to understand and comprehend what
| scientific method represents, or we are just ignorant of other
| mathematical models out there capable of satisfying the null results
| of the Michelson-Morley experiments. <shrug>”
|
| Or you can say:
|
| “Fvck you, Koobee Wublee. Experimental verifications are just for
| shows to allow us, the self-styled physicists, to rule as shamans
| promoting the mysticisms of Special Relativity. We like to dumb down
| the mass and spread mathemaGics following the footsteps of these
| mythical shamans in the past. <shrug>”
|
| So, what is it? Please advise. <shrug>

How about "Koobee Wublee seems to think all the options are bogus, but
since he can't even get basic terminology right we'll just let him
ramble on until he come up with something testable that he thinks isn't
bogus".


--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 19, 1:19 am, Paul Colquhoun wrote:

For shallow minded folks, that is the case. For more sophisticated
minds, these supporting evidences are just not the case. <shrug>

> | At Caltech, Koobee Wublee met Feynman in his later years of life, and
> | He wished Feynman would be around to finish the discussion he raised
> | in the YouTube video. So, let’s re-examine the scenario more
> | thoroughly. We have:
> |
> | ** Prediction 1 (Special Relativity)
>
> Possibly you mean "hypothesis" here instead of "prediction"? It would
> make things clearer later if you weren't using "prediction" for two
> different purposes.

No, the hypothesis is Special Relativity. Only predictions based on
the hypothesis are what can be tested in experiments. <shrug>

> | ** Its bogus predictions
> | ** Convincing experimental verifications
> |
> | ** Prediction 2 (Voigt, Larmor’s, or Lorentz’s transforms)
>
> Hypothesis 2

Hypotheses are the Voigt, Larmor’s, and Lorentz’s transforms. <shrug>

> | ** Their equally bogus predictions
> | ** Convincingly same experimental verifications
> |
> | Now, prediction 1 is an antithesis to prediction 2 and vice versa
> | where both predictions cannot co-exist with each other. The same
>
> See, do you mean hypothesis 1 & 2 here, or the (bogus) predictions they make?
> From the use of the numbers, I'm guessing you mean the hypothesises.

Again, only predictions based on proposed hypotheses can be tested via
experiments. You need to get over with that. Gee! Have you not
paying any attention to what Feynman was saying in the video? <shrug>

> | experiments that have verified Special Relativity also have verified
> | its antitheses. So, can one say Special Relativity is thoroughly
> | verified by experiments? Is it a very difficult question? It
> | apparently is so among the self-styled physicists. So, before
> | answering this question, let’s entertain the two postulates below.
> |
> | ** Flying pigs do exist.
> | ** Flying pigs don’t exist.
> |
> | Observations do find pigs exist. Shall we say the postulate that
> | flying pigs do exist is valid based on that observation? No. We must
> | find flying pigs to verify either of the postulates. This should be
> | common sense.
>
> Actually, finding flying pigs would only verify the first postulate.
> It would falsify the second postulate.

Correct. <shrug>

These postulates are hypotheses. A prediction from either of these
hypotheses is the existence of pigs. <shrug>

So, the observation (through experimentation) of finding pigs does not
falsify either hypothesis. Saying one hypothesis is valid would
automatically falsify the other one. In doing so, saying one
hypothesis is valid actually cannot be verified by that observation of
finding pigs. This is a very simple logic with the mentality of grade
school education. Why do you have so much problems understanding
that? How old are you? <shrug>

> | Back to the experiments that have verified both Special Relativity and
> | its antitheses, the same conclusion should be applied that these
> | experiments do not validate Special Relativity at all. One must find
> | experiments to verify one thesis and invalidate all others to conclude
> | along the line of scientific method, but it has never been done
> | regarding Special Relativity.
> |
> | So, what is the excuse of the self-styled physicists to make such
> | blunders? You can say:
> |
> | “We are just fvcking stupid not able to understand and comprehend what
> | scientific method represents, or we are just ignorant of other
> | mathematical models out there capable of satisfying the null results
> | of the Michelson-Morley experiments. <shrug>”
> |
> | Or you can say:
> |
> | “Fvck you, Koobee Wublee. Experimental verifications are just for
> | shows to allow us, the self-styled physicists, to rule as shamans
> | promoting the mysticisms of Special Relativity. We like to dumb down
> | the mass and spread mathemaGics following the footsteps of these
> | mythical shamans in the past. <shrug>”
> |
> | So, what is it? Please advise. <shrug>
>
> How about "Koobee Wublee seems to think all the options are bogus,

Options? What options? What are you talking about? <shrug>

Koobee Wublee have discussed hypotheses with predictions based on
these hypotheses. <shrug>

> but since he can't even get basic terminology right we'll just
> let him ramble on until he come up with something testable that
> he thinks isn't bogus".

Your opinion has no basis on anything but blind hatred and jealousy of
Koobee Wublee’s scholarly analytical skills. <shrug>