Cosmos Without Gravitation

[OilIsMastery]

Does anyone have a scientific counterargument to this other than Newton's God?

1. The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. ... Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

2. Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

3. Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. ...

8. The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. ...

22. The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are repelled by the sun.

***

a. Gravitation acts in no time. Laplace calculated that, in order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time.

b. Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent. This is a defiance of space. Newton was aware of this difficulty when he wrote in a letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Leibnitz opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason.

d. Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space. ...

IV

1. All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field.

Link (http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm)

[Trippy]

Does anyone have a scientific counterargument to this other than Newton's God?
Yes. How about some common sense.

1. The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. ... Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

Because the thermal energy of the molecules at the earths surface is sufficient to overcome the tendency to settle out. It doesn't take much in the way of turbulence to encourage mixing, add to that the earths topography.

The Irony of just how wrong this statement is is that it's also this settling out that causes the earths atmospheres temperature and composition to vary the way it does (and in spite of what Velikosky might say, it does vary.

2. Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” (4) Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

The generation of Ozone is a Photochemical process. It exists where it does because of a combination of the incoming UV flux, and the way the density of the earths atmosphere changes. Ozone is formed at a rate that is oxygen density and UV flux dependent. The rate at which Ozone is destroyed is also (in part) dependent upon the density of the atmosphere.

Ozone actually exists in varying amounts throughout the entire atmospheric column, and can be created other ways as well, however, Ozone is an unstable molecule, with a half life of about 90 minutes, and the average molecule lasting about 22 days in the earths atmosphere.

The Ozone layer occurs where it does, because the height it is at represents a balance between the rate at which it is created, and the rate at which it is destroyed.

3. Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. ...

It's called suspension.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Saltation-mechanics.gif

Air is made up of particles. These particles collide with the water droplets and transfer energy to them. Clouds only occur where there is some form of updraft, and because of this, the energy transfer has a net direction. Considering the total mass of the clouds is a strawman fallacy, because it simply isn't important. The air doesn't support the cloud as a whole, but the individual droplets.

8. The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. ...

The only way this even comes close to making any sense is if one assumes the continents are fixed and unmoving. A principle that was disproven by Wegner, and even you have accepted as being wrong.

22. The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are repelled by the sun.

Again, entrainment by the solar wind is part of the answer, momentum imparted by photons is the other part of the answer.


a. Gravitation acts in no time. Laplace calculated that, in order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time.

This is straight out wrong (by my recollection anyway, an actual physicist may want to correct me) but my recollection is that it has been demonstrated (albeit the findings are still dispted) that Gravity acts at c.

b. Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent. This is a defiance of space. Newton was aware of this difficulty when he wrote in a letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Leibnitz opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason.

Einstein addressed this point in relativity - Gravity is a force caused by the curvature of space-time.

d. Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space. ...

Gravity is measured to be a weak force, that obeys the inverse square law (as distance increases, force experienced rapidly approaches zero).


1. All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field.

It's called ring physics - if you have a cloud that's tending to rotate in the same direction, then it will tend to collapse into a disc, because when two highly inclined particles collide, the vertical components of their motions will tend to cancel, and the particles will tend to settle into a single plane (i'd wager good money that I know what your next question will be, but we'll see).

[OilIsMastery]

Because the thermal energy of the molecules at the earths surface is sufficient to overcome the tendency to settle out.
That makes no sense. The temperature has nothing to do with whether or not we can breathe. We can still breathe in freezing temperatures.

It doesn't take much in the way of turbulence to encourage mixing, add to that the earths topography.
What about in places where there is quiescent air?

The generation of Ozone is a Photochemical process.
That doesn't explain why it defies gravity.

Ozone actually exists in varying amounts throughout the entire atmospheric column
That defies gravity.

the average molecule lasting about 22 days in the earths atmosphere.
I'm pretty sure you haven't observed the average molecule but still that doesn't answer the question of why it defies gravity for 22 days.

It's called suspension.
Suspension defies gravity.

Air is made up of particles.
Brilliant. So why do those particles defy gravity?

Clouds only occur where there is some form of updraft
Link please. Why does the air beneath the cloud defy gravity?

The only way this even comes close to making any sense is if one assumes the continents are fixed and unmoving.
It's a fact that there is more continental mass in the Northern Hemisphere than there is in the Southern Hemisiphere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om9H0Qv0LSU

A principle that was disproven by Wegner, and even you have accepted as being wrong.
Wegener (1915) cited Mantovani (1909) so you're wrong again.

Again, entrainment by the solar wind is part of the answer
Solar wind defies the gravity of the sun.

momentum imparted by photons is the other part of the answer.
p=mv therefore the photon has mass.

Einstein addressed this point in relativity - Gravity is a force caused by the curvature of space-time.
Something that does not exist cannot be curved. And how, precisely, does matter have an effect on empty space?

It's called ring physics - if you have a cloud that's tending to rotate in the same direction, then it will tend to collapse into a disc, because when two highly inclined particles collide, the vertical components of their motions will tend to cancel, and the particles will tend to settle into a single plane (i'd wager good money that I know what your next question will be, but we'll see).
That makes no sense whatsoever. Sounds like Newtonian gravity aka God did it.

Gravity: http://hss.fullerton.edu/philosophy/GeneralScholium.htm

lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.

This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God ..., Or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God* usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, coexistent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him** are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colors, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshiped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.

[D H]

Does anyone have a scientific counterargument to this other than Newton's God?
Science.
1. Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?
Velikovsky uses several logical fallacies here.

1. From the link, "The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”" This is part of the explanation. By ignoring the other, larger part of the explanation Velikovsky has created a straw man.

2. Continuing from the link, "This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon." Now he uses his straw man to create an appeal to ridicule. He furthermore compounds the fallacy by making an unwarranted conclusion. He assumes that "nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon". This is the logical fallacy of necessity. The link continues with additional straw man, appeal to ridicule, and unwarranted conclusions.

Velikovsky's argument is false because tropospheric mixing is only a part of the explanation. While tropospheric mixing speeds up the mixing process, the atmosphere would be nearly uniform in composition even without tropospheric mixing. Velikovsky ignored the known concepts of diffusion and partial pressure. While diffusion is a slow process, the stable elements of the atmosphere (e.g., nitrogen, oxygen, and argon) have been around for a long time, much more than long enough for tropospheric mixing and diffusion to make for a uniform gaseous mixture.

2. Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” (4) Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.
Yet more fallacies. Scientists know full well why the relative concentration of ozone is considerably higher in the stratosphere than in the troposphere, and density is not the explanation. So what is the explanation?

First off, ozone is unstable. In the upper atmosphere oxygen and ozone transform into one another by means of sunlight. In the troposphere, there production of ozone is vastly reduced because the ozone layer absorbs much of the UV radiation that feeds the oxygen/ozone cycle and destruction of ozone is vastly increased because of the increased presence of hydroxyl ions and nitric oxide in the troposphere.

Secondly, because there is little mixing between the troposphere and stratosphere, there is no reason to assume that the unstable portions of the atmosphere (e.g., water vapor, hydroxyl ions, nitric oxide, and ozone) will have the same distribution in the stratosphere and troposphere.

Note well: The oxygen/ozone cycle was explained in 1930, well before Velikovsky wrote his book.

3. Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. ...
Three fallacies here. First off, water vapor is less dense than is the atmosphere. Secondly, Brownian motion fully explains why very small droplets of liquid water can remain suspended in the atmosphere. Thirdly, it rains.


I have real stuff to do. I've wasted more than enough time on this garbage as it is.

[Xelios]

ignorant stuff
You seem to think there's no force capable of overcoming gravity. In case you're unaware, that's totally wrong.

[OilIsMastery]

You seem to think there's no force capable of overcoming gravity.
Seeming is not being. Electromagnetism is 2X10^39th times more powerful than gravity.

"...in 1913—G. E. Hale published his paper on “The general magnetic field of the sun” (Contr. M. Wilson Obs., #71), in which he estimated the general magnetic field of the sun as of 50 Gauss intensity. At this intensity “under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation.” (Alfven) The last named author in his “cosmical Electro-dynamics” (Oxford, 1950, p. 2) shows that a hydrogen atom at the distance of the earth from the sun and moving with the earth’s orbital velocity, if ionized, is acted upon by the solar magnetic field ten thousand times stronger than by the solar gravitational field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952

[Xelios]

Seeming is not being. Electromagnetism is 2X10^39th times more powerful than gravity.

"...in 1913—G. E. Hale published his paper on “The general magnetic field of the sun” (Contr. M. Wilson Obs., #71), in which he estimated the general magnetic field of the sun as of 50 Gauss intensity. At this intensity “under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation.” (Alfven) The last named author in his “cosmical Electro-dynamics” (Oxford, 1950, p. 2) shows that a hydrogen atom at the distance of the earth from the sun and moving with the earth’s orbital velocity, if ionized, is acted upon by the solar magnetic field ten thousand times stronger than by the solar gravitational field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952
If you accept that then most of your questions answer themselves.

[OilIsMastery]

If you accept that then most of your questions answer themselves.
No. My question is if anyone has a scientific counterargument and so far I haven't seen one.

[disease]

But you won't, in fact you never will; no-one can tell you why because you won't see it.

[OilIsMastery]

But you won't, in fact you never will; no-one can tell you why because you won't see it.
Persuasion requires the use of logic, observation, science and reason as opposed to knee-jerk religious dogma like Newtonian Divine Providence aka "gravity."

http://hss.fullerton.edu/philosophy/GeneralScholium.htm

lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.

This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God ..., Or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God* usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, coexistent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him** are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colors, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshiped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.

[Trippy]

That makes no sense. The temperature has nothing to do with whether or not we can breathe. We can still breathe in freezing temperatures.

This is completely irrelevant and not what I said. Even in the coldest places on earth, there is still sufficient thermal energy to overcome this.

What about in places where there is quiescent?

You obviously don't understand teh concept of turbulent mixing (and the fact that as D_H pointed out, it only forms part of the answer.

That doesn't explain why it defies gravity.

That defies gravity.

Appeal to ignorance. For a small particle, it does not take much force to overcome gravity. at the altitude of the Ozone layer, the mean free path is still only 0.1 - 100 μm - in otherwords, an Ozone molecule can only travel 0.1 - 100 μm before colliding with another molecule of some kind, and with the reactivity of Ozone, this will probably result in a reaction taking place. It also means that it can only travel a distance of 0.1 - 100 μm before it's direction of motion changes.

I'm pretty sure you haven't observed the average molecule but still that doesn't answer the question of why it defies gravity for 22 days.

I've already explained this. You're misrepresenting my statements (again).


Suspension defies gravity.

No, it doesn't.

Brilliant. So why do those particles defy gravity?

They don't.

Go look up Brownian motion, and Mean Free Path.

Link please. Why does the air beneath the cloud defy gravity?

It doesn't. It's called Bouyancy, the warmer air is less dense, and therfore rises, obeying the law of gravity.


It's a fact that there is more continental mass in the Northern Hemisphere than there is in the Southern Hemisiphere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om9H0Qv0LSU

Congratulations, you missed the point (again).

Your assertion is only relavent if we assume the continents are fixed and unmoving.

Wegener (1915) cited Mantovani (1909) so you're wrong again.

Irrelevant. Scientests often cite other scientests as specific examples of points that they're arguing against. The fact that Wegner cited Manotvani is completely meaningless, it only indicates that Wegner used Mantovani as a specific example. In fact if you look up the Wikipedia page on Roberto Mantovani, it explicitly states that Alfred Wegner saw some similarities, but did not support Manotvani's expanding earth theory.

So either you're lying about the significance, or you didn't bother with basic fact checking (meaning either your lazy or ignorant).


Solar wind defies the gravity of the sun.
No it doesn't - look up Escape Velocity.

p=mv therefore the photon has mass.
It's already been explained to you why you're wrong on this point.

Something that does not exist cannot be curved. And how, precisely, does matter have an effect on empty space?
Ask Alphanumeric, BenTheMan, or Rpenner, they can probably give you a more comprehensive answer than I can.


That makes no sense whatsoever. Sounds like Newtonian gravity aka God did it.

Just because you don't understand simple physics, and simple calculas (vector addition) doesn't make it wrong.

[Trippy]

No. My question is if anyone has a scientific counterargument and so far I haven't seen one.

Open your eyes, and your mind.

[Trippy]

OIM: While you're looking stuff up, may I also recomend you look up "Heterosphere" and "Homosphere".

[D H]

Continuing ...

8. The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. ...
More fallacies.
1. This argument is a non sequitur; it barely makes sense. I guess complete lack of logic is a logical fallacy, of a source.
2. It ignores the conservation of angular momentum.
3. It ignores that the Earth's crust represents but a tiny, tiny portion of the total mass of the Earth.
4. It ignores that the ocean crust is more dense than the continental crust.

Perhaps OIM cut off something important with the ellipsis that makes a tad bit more sense. From the link in the OP,
... A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium.
Non sequitur. Angular momentum is what keeps the Earth rotating around a (nearly) fixed axis, not gravity. And WTF is a "dead force"?
Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.
The seasonal distribution of ice and snow does "interfere with the equilibrium of the earth", in the sense that the Earth's rotation rate and rotational axis both exhibit seasonal variations. The former is the difference between UT2 and UT1, while the latter is the seasonal polar motion.

22. The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are repelled by the sun.
Comets and their tails of course do "obey the principle of gravitation". They also happen to be subject to other forces. To say that astronomers think gravitation is the only force worthy of consideration is a straw man.

a. Gravitation acts in no time. Laplace calculated that, in order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time.
False. We've gone over this before. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

See "Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?" at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

b. Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent. This is a defiance of space. Newton was aware of this difficulty when he wrote in a letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Leibnitz opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason.
This argument is (1) a mischaracterization of science, (2) quotes people out of context, (3) ignores general relativity. Nice.

d. Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space. ...
Rebuttal: (1) The mass of the universe is not infinite. (2) In Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational force inside a uniform shell of mass is zero. (3) Mach's principle.

1. All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field.
This confuses correlation and causation. The Sun's magnetic field arises from the Sun's rotation about its own axis. The Sun's rotation axis and the planet's orbital axes are nearly parallel because the interstellar nebula from which the sun and planets formed was rotating. Angular momentum is a conserved quantity.

[Xelios]

No. My question is if anyone has a scientific counterargument and so far I haven't seen one.
No, I'm telling you the question's you've asked answer themselves. It's not my job to give you a high school education on this subject, if it's answers you want I suggest you take a high school physics class. Though I suspect you don't give a damn about the answers, you're only here to start an argument for the sake of arguing.

[przyk]

Does anyone have a scientific counterargument to this other than Newton's God?

1. The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. ... Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

2. Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

3. Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. ...

8. The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. ...

22. The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are repelled by the sun.

***

a. Gravitation acts in no time. Laplace calculated that, in order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time.

b. Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent. This is a defiance of space. Newton was aware of this difficulty when he wrote in a letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Leibnitz opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason.

d. Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space. ...

IV

1. All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field.
Link (http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm)
In addition, if you walk off the top of a tall building you'll remain suspended in mid air - despite the great difference in specific weight between your body and the surrounding atmosphere. This is clearly incompatible with the religion of gravity.

[OilIsMastery]

In addition, if you walk off the top of a tall building you'll remain suspended in mid air - despite the great difference in specific weight between your body and the surrounding atmosphere. This is clearly incompatible with the religion of gravity.
If "you" refers to a molecule of argon, nitrogen, or ozone then you are quite correct.

[D H]

Because the thermal energy of the molecules at the earths surface is sufficient to overcome the tendency to settle out.That makes no sense. The temperature has nothing to do with whether or not we can breathe. We can still breathe in freezing temperatures.
Your response is what makes no sense. Temperature has a lot to do with the behavior of gases. Before you embarrass yourself further, you should familiarize yourself with the kinetic theory of gases. Here's one site: http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c120/gaskinetics.html. Google will show you many, many more.


What about in places where there is quiescent air?
Read post #4.

The generation of Ozone is a Photochemical process.That doesn't explain why it defies gravity.
You deleted the portion of Trippy's response that explains why ozone is more concentrated in the stratosphere. Also see post #4.


That doesn't explain why it defies gravity.

That defies gravity.

I'm pretty sure you haven't observed the average molecule but still that doesn't answer the question of why it defies gravity for 22 days.

Suspension defies gravity.

Brilliant. So why do those particles defy gravity?

Why does the air beneath the cloud defy gravity?

Repeating the same tripe over and over does not make said tripe correct. You are embarrassing yourself and you are an embarrassment to this forum. You need to study the kinetic theory of gases at a minimum. If you want to learn why the relative concentration of ozone is much higher in the stratosphere, read up on the ozone/oxygen cycle. If you want to understand how rain clouds form, read up on meteorology in general and the water cycle specifically. There is lots of material on the web from K-12 and up. There is even some at the K-6 level, which is where you might want to start.

Atmosphereic scientists do not think that gravity is the only force acting on the atmosphere. You are implying that science only considers gravity in explaining the makeup of the atmosphere. In doing so you are building a straw man.


It's a fact that there is more continental mass in the Northern Hemisphere than there is in the Southern Hemisiphere.
That is a fact. So what? You, as the proponent of an alternative explanation, need to show why this uneven mass distribution would, quoting Velikovsky, "place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun." You can't just say that this posited result will occur (HINT: Velikovsky is wrong) you need to show how and why. Supplying answers to these questions might help:
How significant is this in terms of the overall distribution of mass in the Earth?
What torques does this uneven distribution of continental mass produce?
By which mechanism?
What is the time frame needed to change the current, supposedly unstable alignment of the Earth to an alignment with the "northern hemisphere with its face to the sun"?
What happens if the continents move while this purported realignment takes place?

p=mv therefore the photon has mass.
No, it doesn't. We've discussed this before.

[James R]

OilIsMastery:

I would like to see you displaying some basic courtesy. Trippy and DH have explained in some detail why Velikovsky was wrong, and have answered your questions. So, now is your opportunity to thank them for teaching you some science you obviously didn't know before.

I note that I also taught you about relativity in a previous thread, and you have not thanked me for that, either.

Didn't your parents teach you manners?

A bit more education for you:

That makes no sense. The temperature has nothing to do with whether or not we can breathe. We can still breathe in freezing temperatures.

The average temperature of the air on Earth is about 290-300 Kelvin (the absolute temperature scale).

What about in places where there is quiescent air?

There are no places where there is quiescent air. At 300 Kelvin, the average speed of a molecule in the air is several hundred metres per second.

The generation of Ozone is a Photochemical process.

That doesn't explain why it defies gravity.

This was explained to you in the first reply. Why are you pretending it was not?

Solar wind defies the gravity of the sun.

By the same argument, a ball defies the gravity of the Earth when it is thrown into the air. See where your argument fails?

p=mv therefore the photon has mass.

Did you not read my detailed and helpful explanation of your error on this point in the other thread? If not, go look for it. Then do me the courtesy of thanking me for educating you.

Einstein addressed this point in relativity - Gravity is a force caused by the curvature of space-time.

Something that does not exist cannot be curved. And how, precisely, does matter have an effect on empty space?

You appear to be claiming that spacetime does not exist. Please provide evidence for that claim, if you have any.

As to your second question, the explanation of how this occurs is found in Einstein's gravitational field equations of general relativity. Basically, energy and mass causes spacetime to curve.

...a cloud that's tending to rotate in the same direction, then it will tend to collapse into a disc, because when two highly inclined particles collide, the vertical components of their motions will tend to cancel, and the particles will tend to settle into a single plane (i'd wager good money that I know what your next question will be, but we'll see).

That makes no sense whatsoever. Sounds like Newtonian gravity aka God did it.

A bit of humility wouldn't go astray. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that the thing is not understood by others.

You would do better to ask questions to clarify your lack of knowledge rather than simply asserting the untruth of anything you don't understand.

Once again, it comes down to basic courtesy and a willingness to put your ego aside and learn something.

[OilIsMastery]

OilIsMastery:

I would like to see you displaying some basic courtesy.
You mean like the courtesy that I receive when moderators call me an idiot (allegedly against forum rules) and ban me for posting a video of an electron?

You appear to be claiming that spacetime does not exist.
It exists in our mathematical imagination only not in physical material reality.

Please provide evidence for that claim, if you have any.
Please provide evidence for your claim that there is such a thing as empty space except in your mathematical imagination.

Here is my evidence: Kant, I., Critique of Pure Reason, 1781.

"I can't even tell you at the moment what 'at the moment means.' Even momentarily." -- Brian Cox, physicist, 2008

"Classic quantum mechanics seems to exhibit some of the characteristics that Immanuel Kant described about the relation between phenomenal reality in space and time and things-in-themselves." -- Kelley L. Ross, philosopher, 1997

"The arguments of Hume and Kant have been confirmed by quantum mechanics." -- Sunny Y. Auyang, physicist, 1995

"Quite generally there is no way of describing what happens between two consecutive observations. It is of course tempting to say that the electron must have been somewhere between the two observations and that therefore the electron must have described some kind of path or orbit even if it may be impossible to know which path. This would be a reasonable argument in classical physics. But in quantum physics it would be a misuse of the language which, as we will see later, cannot be justified." -- Werner Heisenberg, physicist, 1958

"In the discussion of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory it has been emphasised that we use the classical concepts in describing our experimental equipment and more generally in describing that part of the world which does not belong to the object of the experiment. The use of these concepts, including space, time and causality, is in fact the condition for observing atomic events and is, in this sense of the word, 'a priori'." -- Werner Heisenberg, physicist, 1958

"The belief in an external world independent of the observing subject lies at the foundation of all natural science. However, since sense-perceptions only inform us about this external world, or physical reality, indirectly, it is only in a speculative way that it can be grasped by us. Consequently our conceptions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these conceptions, i.e. the axiomatic basis of physics, in order to do justice to the facts of observation in the most complete way that is logically possible. In actual fact, a glance at the development of physics shows that this axiomatic basis has met with radical changes from time to time." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1931

"If nothing is observable, it is only proper to say that nothing is happening; the system is settled into a spaceless and timeless stationary state outside our intuitions." -- Clinton Joseph Davisson, physicist, 1927

Basically, energy and mass causes spacetime to curve.
How?

[D H]

How ironic! OilIsMastery has hijacked his own thread with an off-topic post chock-full of out-of-context quotes.

Rather than derailing the thread, how about responding to the critiques of the original post?

[James R]

OIM:

You mean like the courtesy that I receive when moderators call me an idiot (allegedly against forum rules) and ban me for posting a video of an electron?

So, you decline to display basic manners to posters who help you. Noted.

Also noted is that you ignored most of the substance of my previous post, to focus on one issue only. I will respond to that issue and assume you agree with the other points I made.

Here is my evidence: Kant, I., Critique of Pure Reason, 1781.

Kant was a philosopher, not a physicist. Also, this was written in 1781 - before much was known about space and time.

"Classic quantum mechanics seems to exhibit some of the characteristics that Immanuel Kant described about the relation between phenomenal reality in space and time and things-in-themselves." -- Kelley L. Ross, philosopher, 1997

Another philosopher. This out-of-context quote is so vague that by itself it is next to useless.

"The arguments of Hume and Kant have been confirmed by quantum mechanics." -- Sunny Y. Auyang, physicist, 1995

Which arguments? Another out-of-context quote. Please quote the entire passage. Or is this yet another dishonest attempt on your part to mislead readers?

"Quite generally there is no way of describing what happens between two consecutive observations. It is of course tempting to say that the electron must have been somewhere between the two observations and that therefore the electron must have described some kind of path or orbit even if it may be impossible to know which path. This would be a reasonable argument in classical physics. But in quantum physics it would be a misuse of the language which, as we will see later, cannot be justified." -- Werner Heisenberg, physicist, 1958

This is correct, but irrelevant to the argument that spacetime exists.

"The belief in an external world independent of the observing subject lies at the foundation of all natural science. However, since sense-perceptions only inform us about this external world, or physical reality, indirectly, it is only in a speculative way that it can be grasped by us. Consequently our conceptions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these conceptions, i.e. the axiomatic basis of physics, in order to do justice to the facts of observation in the most complete way that is logically possible. In actual fact, a glance at the development of physics shows that this axiomatic basis has met with radical changes from time to time." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1931

An insightful comment. I note that you rely on Einstein when it suits your purposes, but at other times you claim he was completely wrong.

You're flip-flopping as to whether you trust Einstein or not. Which is it?

"If nothing is observable, it is only proper to say that nothing is happening; the system is settled into a spaceless and timeless stationary state outside our intuitions." -- Clinton Joseph Davisson, physicist, 1927

Another out-of-context quote that requires context to have any meaning at all.

[OilIsMastery]

If any of those quotes are out of context then I'm a Roman Emperor.

[OilIsMastery]

Kant was a philosopher, not a physicist.
You cannot be a physicist unless you are a philosopher.

Also, Kant was a physicst first and foremost.

"Kant pointed out in the middle of last century, what had not previously been discovered by mathematicians or physical astronomers, that the frictional resistance against tidal currents on the earth's surface must cause a diminution of the earth's rotational speed. This really great discovery in Natural Philosophy seems to have attracted little attention,--indeed to have passed quite unnoticed, --among mathematicians, and astronomers, and naturalists, until about 1840, when the doctrine of energy began to be taken to heart." -- Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1897

"Lord Kelvin has rightly pointed out that no previous mathematician or physical astronomer had discovered or anticipated Kant's solution--and with this Professor Tait and M. Wolf agree; so that it appears to be absolutely original." -- Thomas Wright, historian, 1900

Also, this was written in 1781 - before much was known about space and time.
:roflmao:

Nothing true can be said about space or time without reference to Kant.

"To suppose a reader thoroughly indifferent to Kant, is to suppose him thoroughly unintellectual...." -- Thomas De Quincey, author, 1827

Another philosopher.
I only quoted one.

[BenTheMan]

If any of those quotes are out of context then I'm a Roman Emperor.

You can call me Brutus :)

[LogicTech]

Also, Kant was a physicst first and foremost.



No he wasn't.

[OilIsMastery]

No he wasn't.
You're being ignorant.

"The sort of geological speculation to which I am now referring (geological aetiology, in short) was created as a science by that famous philosopher, Immanuel Kant, when, in 1775 [1755], he wrote his General Natural History and Theory of the Celestial Bodies; or, an Attempt to Account for the Constitutional and Mechanical Origin of the Universe, upon Newtonian Principles." -- Thomas H. Huxley, biologist, 1869

"Kant pointed out in the middle of last century, what had not previously been discovered by mathematicians or physical astronomers, that the frictional resistance against tidal currents on the earth's surface must cause a diminution of the earth's rotational speed. This really great discovery in Natural Philosophy seems to have attracted little attention,--indeed to have passed quite unnoticed, --among mathematicians, and astronomers, and naturalists, until about 1840, when the doctrine of energy began to be taken to heart." -- Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1897

"Lord Kelvin has rightly pointed out that no previous mathematician or physical astronomer had discovered or anticipated Kant's solution--and with this Professor Tait and M. Wolf agree; so that it appears to be absolutely original." -- Thomas Wright, historian, 1900

[D H]

I take it that this hijack of your own thread means you agree with Trippy and me that Velikovksy's arguments as described in the original post are false.

[James R]

OIM:

You cannot be a physicist unless you are a philosopher.

Nonsense.

Also, Kant was a physicst first and foremost.

That is a lie.

Nothing true can be said about space or time without reference to Kant.

Nonsense.

"To suppose a reader thoroughly indifferent to Kant, is to suppose him thoroughly unintellectual...." -- Thomas De Quincey, author, 1827

Another out-of-context quote. Quincey was referring to philosophy.

OIM:

Your misleading quote-mining must stop. It amounts to trolling, and my patience is wearing thin.

Either you do not understand the content of what you quote, and so quote it out of context, or else you do understand and are deliberately seeking to mislead your readers.

In the first case, you should get yourself and education before attempting to use quotes. In the second case, you must learn to have some personal integrity.

Either way, further out-of-context quotes from you will now result in a ban from sciforums for the period of 1 month. Consider carefully before you quote somebody again...

[OilIsMastery]

That is a lie.
Kant was a physicist. You cannot be an Aristotelian Metaphysician without first being a physicist. Metaphysics literally means things which come after physics...:rolleyes:

"The sort of geological speculation to which I am now referring (geological aetiology, in short) was created as a science by that famous philosopher, Immanuel Kant, when, in 1775 [1755], he wrote his General Natural History and Theory of the Celestial Bodies; or, an Attempt to Account for the Constitutional and Mechanical Origin of the Universe, upon Newtonian Principles." -- Thomas H. Huxley, biologist, 1869

"Kant pointed out in the middle of last century, what had not previously been discovered by mathematicians or physical astronomers, that the frictional resistance against tidal currents on the earth's surface must cause a diminution of the earth's rotational speed. This really great discovery in Natural Philosophy seems to have attracted little attention,--indeed to have passed quite unnoticed, --among mathematicians, and astronomers, and naturalists, until about 1840, when the doctrine of energy began to be taken to heart." -- Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1897

"Lord Kelvin has rightly pointed out that no previous mathematician or physical astronomer had discovered or anticipated Kant's solution--and with this Professor Tait and M. Wolf agree; so that it appears to be absolutely original." -- Thomas Wright, historian, 1900

[James R]

OIM:

Your statement was:

Also, Kant was a physicst first and foremost.

Your out-of-context quotes do nothing to back up your statement that Kant was first and foremost a physicist.

It's a stupid statement on its face.

I note also that you repeated your out-of-context quotes following my previous warning to you. In case you really are too stupid to realise your errors, let me just say this:

"Lord Kelvin has rightly pointed out that no previous mathematician or physical astronomer had discovered or anticipated Kant's solution--and with this Professor Tait and M. Wolf agree; so that it appears to be absolutely original." -- Thomas Wright, historian, 1900

This quote is out of context. Why? Primarily because we don't know which "solution" of Kant's it is referring to. You have not quoted enough of the surrounding material to even give a hint.

In the context of the rest of your post, we are apparently supposed to think that it has something to do with a theory of gravity. But who knows?

We also aren't given any hint as to who Professor Tait and M. Wolf are, and why their support of Kant's "solution" is supposed to be important to us.

Now, I require you to provide the context for this specific quote, or be banned from sciforums. You have 24 hours.

[OilIsMastery]

Your out-of-context quotes do nothing to back up your statement that Kant was first and foremost a physicist.
They don't?

It's a stupid statement on its face.
It's stupid to say metaphysics means things which come after physics?

This quote is out of context. Why? Primarily because we don't know which "solution" of Kant's it is referring to.
If you read the quotes you would know what they are refering to. The 1754 papers (1) the above referenced nebular paper referenced by Huxley and (2) the paper on the retardation of the rotation of the Earth referenced by Kelvin.

You have not quoted enough of the surrounding material to even give a hint.
If you read the quotes it's not necessary. The two 1754 papers. The Nebular paper and the Rotation paper.

Now, I require you to provide the context for this specific quote, or be banned from sciforums. You have 24 hours.
See above.

[EndLightEnd]

Since when is out of context quoting a bannable offense?

[BenTheMan]

Since when is out of context quoting a bannable offense?

Depends on who's doing the out of context quoting.

I'd say OIM has much less leeway than other members of Sci.

[D H]

Since when is out of context quoting a bannable offense?
http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=6
13. Repeat offenders

The moderators here are not paid for their work, and have limited time. We do not look kindly on posters whom we have to watch continually for breaches of the forum rules. If we find that your posts are requiring continual moderation attention, you will first be warned by personal message. If the inappropriate posts continue, you will be banned.



I'd say OIM has much less leeway than other members of Sci.
Are you kidding? I'd say you moderators have given OIM more leeway than almost any other abusive poster here!

[James R]

Moderator note: OIM has been permanently banned from sciforums for continual trolling.

Obviously, this obviates my request in post #31. This ban relates to OIM's behaviour in both this thread and several others.

[EndLightEnd]

http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=6

Originally Posted by Rules
13. Repeat offenders

The moderators here are not paid for their work, and have limited time. We do not look kindly on posters whom we have to watch continually for breaches of the forum rules. If we find that your posts are requiring continual moderation attention, you will first be warned by personal message. If the inappropriate posts continue, you will be banned. "


This says nothing about out of context quoting specifically, which was the violation. This just shows the rule that allows a witch hunt.


Are you kidding? I'd say you moderators have given OIM more leeway than almost any other abusive poster here!

OIM's threads were watched more than any others. I guarantee it.

[BenTheMan]

Moderator note: OIM has been permanently banned from sciforums for continual trolling.

Obviously, this obviates my request in post #31. This ban relates to OIM's behaviour in both this thread and several others.

woot!

[BenTheMan]

OIM's threads were watched more than any others. I guarantee it.

Yeah, a lot of people watch Jackass on MTV, too.

[Trippy]

If I may be forgiven borrowing OilIsMastery's techniques for a moment.

"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable." -Michael Palin (et al) Historian.

We may therefore disregard anything Kant had to say as the delusional ramblings of a Drunkard.

Now...

There's two or three major holes in this logic, which aren't immeadiately obvious without the context of the quote.

[LogicTech]

Moderator note: OIM has been permanently banned from sciforums for continual trolling.

Obviously, this obviates my request in post #31. This ban relates to OIM's behaviour in both this thread and several others.

Really? Yay! :)

Although, it is too bad that I won't get an response from him on the Nazism and the Immanuel Kant thread....