Why Did We Get Into Space

It's not my point. It's the point of Ostriker and Gardner. And they are direct quotes. See NYT article posted above to confirm your deliberate ignorance and dishonesty.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. where is it going?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wrong again: it isn't Gardner's point - his comment was on Velikovsky's interpretation or invention of non-standard electro-magnetic forces.
Keep trying: I pointed out your dishonesty with the Phil Plait quote.
Thanks for the NYT link - now we have 1 out 3 quotes that agree with you - all 3 of which were supplied by you.
Makes your position pretty tenuous doesn't it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Velikovsky did not event electromagnetism.

The fact that you ignore quotations?

 

It's going to defy gravity.

 

Learn to read:

I.e. Velikovsky invented capabilities for electro-magnetic forces - capabilities which do not exist - not the forces themselves.

Ignore?
I pointed out that one of the 3 supports your argument, that one you have misinterpreted and the third you have misquoted to support your view.

 

Velikovsky did not invent any capablities of electromagnetism. That's a lie. Just because Velikovsky said electromagnetic forces exist in space, that does not mean Ostriker and Gardner are correct in saying electromagnetism does not exist.

In another thread I provided you with over 80 quotations and you ignored 79 of them, which is over 98% of them. Makes your position pretty laughable.

The quote you're afraid to acknowledge?

 

Correction - Gardner does not say electro-magnetism does not exist - he says those particular capabilities (the ones invented by Velikovsky) do not exist for the force.

Correction again: I pointed out that one contradicted you and that others don't actually support your view, and still others are out of date or from known crackpots, etc.

You mean the quote of which I stated:

So you have one quote that supports your position, versus the fact that current theory works: so what?

 

Whatever capabilities Gardner was referring to in the quote.

Assumptions again.
Yet you quote both as support.
Strange that, isn't it?

So what?

Yep.

Putting words in my mouth?
I didn't say they were crackpots: they are, however, out dated.

Fatuous argument.
As already explained, Newton's view of gravitation was a scientific explanation, not creationist.

And becoming more so.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yup, and presumably Velikovsky has proven his claims?

FFS you don't actually read my posts do you?
I did NOT use the word crackpot in reference to Kepler, Leibniz, Faraday, Mach, or Poincare - that was aimed at Velikovsky.

Actually I read it the last time you posted it.
The difference being that I understood it and you haven't.

 

Again I have to ask where is it going?
Do you have any evidence of that?

 

What part of away from the Earth at 3.8 cm per year don't you understand?

 

This is the original statement. And I asked where is it going and all I want to know is the direction that it is headed.

 

It is going away from the Earth and it is headed away from the Earth.

Otherwise, there is no absolute Cartesian coordinate system and all motion is relative and relational.

 

Because we are still apes, not worms. So our natural way of finding an escape route is going up and up and up, always, this is in our genes. No matter how philosophically or scientifically pump it up, stars were in the eyes of our ancestors without having the means of achieving to reach out what they see in the sky at night. We made it outer space, next generations would make outside of the solar system and beyond. We just need to stick on our ape roots, the rest will follow.

 

You say it is going away from the Earth, but what direction in space? Why don't you give me the direction in right ascension/declination.

 

Blatant lie or deliberate misunderstanding.:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2251806&postcount=71
It was an overall description: the quotes come from crackpots and non-scientists etc etc, not "every single one of them is a crackpot AND a non-scientist etc".
Or did you think I was describing Einstein and Newton plus a couple of others as non-scientists?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You said crackpots plural so who are the crackpots and non-scientists?

The only logical interpretation was that one would be referring to Newton and Einstein. Mathematicians are not scientists and they were both quite clearly crackpots.

 

That is a hypothetical and not a practical issue is it? (Plato, Archimedes, Hubble, Gamow, Einstein).

This I don't understand. You say it is moving away and yet you don't know the direction. Maybe the moon isn't moving away?

 

Space isn't practical. Empty space has never been observed because nothingness cannot exist. You cannot hold space in your hand or experiment on space because nothingness cannot exist.

The vector is away. As in the opposite direction.

Actually it is. It's that pesky thing called scientific measurement (laser ranging from Apollo).