04-27-10, 11:27 AM #381
It is a simple observational fact that he is wrong when / if saying Venus is keeping same face towards Earth. - No physics needed. (Except that which is that which made the radars which can see thru the cloud cover and watch Venus present different mountains to Earth as it spins in 1 to 1 lock with its orbit around the sun.) Optically in a telescope, Venus always looks the same due to its continuous 100% cloud cover. (Part that happens to be illuminated that is - Venus has "phases" just like the moon and for the same reason.)
I am growing tired of responding to you - believe any counter factual observations nonsense you like - I no longer care; but just to show there is not hard feeling I will give you some financial advice:
Don't invest in the gummy bear factory - the workers will just eat up your profits - literally. Instead, you being such an intelligent guy, will recognize the potential for profits with a toll bridge. I just happen to own a very heavily used bridge in Brooklyn, which I will sell you cheap, if you don't tell the IRS of my profit.
Sorry Pete, but you should not try to take advantage of such a still wet behind the ears, gullible kid.
Last edited by Billy T; 04-27-10 at 11:47 AM.
04-27-10, 11:29 AM #382
The only thing which 'rattles' me if your unwavering gullibility and irrationality.
There's a very good explanation of why you shouldn't listen to people because they have letters before or after their name in this Youtube video. There are PhDs who think 9/11 was an inside job and the towers fell due to planted explosives. They write websites but not papers they submit to journals. If they can't pass peer review then they aren't worth listening to because it means they can't reach basic standards of the scientific methodology like justifying their claims and providing clear explanations. Until they can justify their arguments in a way which meets basic standards they are 'just some guy' (as said in the video). The fact they are 'just some guy' with letters after his name is irrelevant.
Besides, if you want to go down the road of "I'll listen to Person X because he has more education and experience than Person Y" then you should listen to me a lot more when you just make up ideas. I have more experience, knowledge and ability than you when it comes to physics, the entire mainstream community does, yet you don't listen to the mainstream most of the time. Either you accept argument from authority (ie accept the views of the most educated/experienced) as you're trying to do here or you never accept argument from authority and you go entirely by how much evidence and reason supports a point of view. By jumping from one to the other and back you're being a hypocrite and inconsistent and just picking whichever one is in line with your preconceived notions. But then all cranks do that.
Argument from authority is flawed methodology, you should work by evidence and reason. The NS article has no evidence and even has to assume several pretty big things which have never been observed.
04-27-10, 09:43 PM #383
Please, let's not be silly!
04-28-10, 04:52 AM #384
Bulletin News: I've even just thought that Venus's orbital resonance with the Earth could also be the reason for the Moon's increase in orbital distance of around 3.8 cm/year, i.e. could the Moon also be orbital resonance with Venus?!
04-28-10, 10:31 AM #385
04-28-10, 10:42 AM #386
Earth's obit is 356.25 days. Venus orbit is 224.68 days. The ratio of their periods is 1.6256, which last time I checked is not any reasonable rational integer ratio. You probably do not even understand what "resonance" means in this context; but Hey, why should that stop you from talking about it?
If you insist in making up counter observational factual nonsense, please don't post it. No need to make yourself more obviously stupid and ignorant.
Also for the benefit of others, the tidal dissipation is why the moon is receding. It is well understood.
Last edited by Billy T; 04-28-10 at 10:51 AM.
04-28-10, 11:03 AM #387
"THE heart of Venus may belong to Earth. Our planet could be tugging on the core of Venus, exerting control over its spin."
Whenever Venus and Earth arrive at the closest point in their orbits, Venus always presents the same face to us. This could mean that Earth's gravity is tugging subtly on Venus, affecting its rotation rate. That idea, raised decades ago, was disregarded when it turned out that Venus is spinning too fast to be in such a gravitational "resonance".
But Earth could still be pulling on Venus by controlling its core, according to calculations by Gérard Caudal of the University of Versailles-Saint Quentin (Journal of Geophysical Research, in press).
Caudal made large assumptions about Venus's interior, which we know little about. For his hypothesis to be correct, the planet would, like Earth, need a solid core surrounded by a liquid layer. This could allow the solid core to rotate slower than the rest of the planet. The core would also have to be heterogeneous, so that Earth can exert a variable tug as Venus spins. "There should be something that the gravity of the Earth could grasp," Caudal says.
David Stevenson of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena thinks the resonance theory is worth revisiting, even though persistent imperfections in the core are unlikely.
04-28-10, 01:16 PM #388
Please follow my advice. Stop posting you uninformed stupid ideas. It only confirms how little you know.
*There is no shield for sun's gravity. If the core were shielded by sudden magic shielding of the outer layers, it would not be be not be in orbit, but push right thru the outer layers of Venus in a straight line until captured by the sun again - Last time I looked this had not happened.
Last edited by Billy T; 04-28-10 at 05:14 PM.
04-29-10, 07:49 AM #389
04-29-10, 08:31 AM #390
04-29-10, 09:40 AM #391
04-29-10, 01:21 PM #392
Last edited by Billy T; 04-29-10 at 01:33 PM.
05-04-10, 04:21 AM #393
I know you're not going to agree of course Billy T, but I thought of a more formal title for my assumed composition of the Earth, namely, mean entropy/density gradient from crust to core. (The 'exotic' matter core of which I have already deduced to be rugby ball shaped btw, on it's end as if ready to be kicked)
05-04-10, 07:56 AM #394
You are correct about one thing: I don't agree - I never do with total nonsense.
05-04-10, 09:36 AM #395
I'm still waiting for CSS to tell me what I have to be rattled about. It seems he's labouring under the false impression that scientists fear or actively avoid anything which might affect their world view. I'd say that's more the point of view of the religious and/or ignorant. If someone could show me tomorrow that string theory is undeniably flawed I would love to see it because it would be an amazing display of knowledge and intellect. Sure, it wouldn't be a display of knowledge and intellect by me, I'll freely admit I don't have such knowledge and intellect, but I can still take enjoyment and intellectual forefillment by seeing someone ese display such things even if it means accepting I was wrong on something.
Religous nuts and physics cranks can justify their claims in clear logical manners then I'd happily embrace them. Yet despite thousands of years of people trying to find evidence for God which isn't just superficial heresay or more than a decade of the internet being infested with people who claim to have superior work to the mainstream nothing has come from either group and made its way into science.
Yes, I know that's a slight tangent but given trying to engage CSS on the topic of science is pointless I don't think its exactly going to derail the thread.
05-04-10, 09:46 AM #396
The Story of Science: Power, Proof and Passion(Scientific Documentary)
What is the World Made of?
What is the World Made of? Michael Mosley takes an informative and ambitious journey exploring how the evolution of scientific understanding is intimately interwoven with society's historical path. In this episode, Michael demonstrates how our society is built on our search to find out what makes up everything in the material world. This is a story that moves from the secret labs of the alchemists to the creation of the world's first synthetic dye - mauve - and onto the invention of the transistor.
05-11-10, 05:11 AM #397
Gerard Caudal has kindly emailed me his original paper on the rotation of Venus, though I'm having a bit of trouble making it copy to this post. If anyone wants a copy I can forward the email if they wish.
From: caudal gerard (firstname.lastname@example.org)
You may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as junk
Sent: 10 May 2010 10:38:23
To: Alan Lowey (email@example.com)
Cc: caudal gerard (firstname.lastname@example.org)
2 attachments | Download all attachments (996.9 KB)
2009je003...pdf (996.2 KB), ATT00001 (0.6 KB)
Dear Mr Lowey,
Following your recent message, please find attached my original paper concerning the rotation of Venus, which is in press in Journal of Geophysical Research Planets,
05-11-10, 07:48 AM #398
05-11-10, 12:02 PM #399
05-11-10, 02:10 PM #400
By Orleander in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & CosmologyLast Post: 11-18-09, 12:16 PMReplies: 72
By countezero in forum Science & SocietyLast Post: 12-03-07, 11:32 AMReplies: 108
By Medicine*Woman in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 03-12-07, 10:07 AMReplies: 20
By vincent in forum World EventsLast Post: 09-01-05, 03:10 AMReplies: 5