- Yes, it does.
By whom? Its not the scientific community.
Which evidence says it is.
Yes, IN YOUR OPINION which you then immediately admit is ignorant of what work has actually been done. You dismiss work you haven't read! Good scientific methodology!
You admit you're ignorant and yet you don't spot how stupid that it.
So because a documentary show hasn't done a computer simulation you think its wrong? Good logic. Obviously you're still seeking that common sense you obviously lack. And as it happens simulations have been done which model dust cloud collapse.
Come on, admit it, you lied about having an astronomy degree. Because no one who had one would say what you just did. Unless you went to a really shit university.
Chaos Into Order or Order Into Chaos? BBC2 Prof Cox
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
Lol!!
I fail to see what's funny. You admit you're ignorant of something immediately after you dismiss it. You make claims you can't back up and it would seem you sometimes just flat out lie. Most people wouldn't find being exposed as a liar and a hack 'lol-worthy'.Lol!!
So, are you going to answer my questions or at least admit you lied?
I don't have time for your nastiness. I prefer to reply to people who are bit kinder to alternative ideas. No offence, but that's how it is.
You can be quite frustrating when you ignore established facts, you know that?
We aren't being nasty, but we do get a bit short when we have spent time in the classroom and lab, learning, and verifying these scientific principles, to have doubt cast on them, and that doubt to be ill-researched, and demonstrating a lack of understanding of fundamentals.
Let's bring this into your realm. You install fencing yes? What if someone insisted that it's OK to just dig a hole, and put a fence post in it, and it will stay put that way, longer even than if you set it with concrete. Experience tells you otherwise, what would you have to say to that person? If they worked for you, and ignored you telling them to set the posts? I think after you told them a few times, and they ignored you, you'd fire them, yes?
No, I said I used to be a self-employed garden fencer (just like I have degree in Astronomy with Computing). Before that I was a missile scientist, so I'm perhaps more familiar with mainstream science than you give me credit for?
I haven't got a transcript, but I think if you rewatch the programme you'll find that he said that the formation of stars in our galaxy was started by the disturbance caused by a supernova. That's standard theory. I don't know what the theory is about original star formation, but at a guess it was caused by cooling and clumping. It can't have been Novas can it? There weren't any stars.
It does seem counter intuitive that nicely contained spherical suns are more chaotic than disparate clouds of gas, but think of the consequence of sun formation, the production of vast amounts of heat. Entropy.
Regarding Professor Cox.
Wonderful programme, but doesn't anyone else find his constant grinning and enthusiasm just a little annoying?
You can make missiles?
Last edited:
I started watching it again but couldn't face it. I put the beta band straight back on to my earphones.
You can make missiles?
Probably a Nerf Launcher.
It was a long time ago and I was probably out-of-date then anyway. Was it better for me to have left like a goofball wanting to solve the problem with gravity or should I have stayed to design intelligent missile systems of the future? :shrug:
CSS said 'nova' not supernova though. He also claimed Cox had said that this was the cause of the first star formation, CSS doesn't grasp what's being said at all, and clearly hasn't got any qualification in Astronomy like he claims, or wouldn't make such elementary (pun intended) mistakes!!!!!!
Like fuck you do. You don't grasp the basics of science, and make mistakes that would embarrass a schoolkid.
Like fuck you were. You demonstrated a total failure to understand aerodynamics on the ray thread.
Given how much time you spend trawling the internet for bigfoot encounters I would say you have plenty of time.
No, you prefer to reply to people who don't ask you to justify any of your claims because anyone who does ask you to justify your claims or probes your understanding of anything quickly exposes how clueless you are.
I simply don't believe you. You have no grasp of basic mathematics or any physics related things (like gravity or fluid mechanics). What precisely did you do when 'a missile scientist'? You've previously demonstrated a lot of ignorance about fluid mechanics and gravity and those are important things when working out the motion of a missile through the atmosphere.
We go by your track record, which is extremely poor. If you were more familiar with mainstream science you'd not be saying or asking the things you do. You had the benefit of the doubt and you demonstrated you aren't familiar with mainstream science. You have no one to blame but yourself for people thinking you're uninformed.
And you seem to be going about 'solving the problem with gravity' by refusing to learn anything and ignoring any and all corrections, suggestions and comments. You get your information from pop science TV and magazines, hardly the best way to go about solving 'the problem with gravity'. What is this problem anyway?
Let's wait for the ESA announcement about the early signs of Phobos' interior and composition. I'm betting that they already know that their results from last week's flyby suggests the moon isn't hollow at all!
Erm, shouldn't you be saying that it is hollow.
The Martian moon Phobos, generally accepted as a celestial body, actually may be an artificial satellite launched long ago by an advanced Martian race, according to Dr. S. Fred Singer, special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments. No mention was made of the other Mars moon, Deimos.
http://www.rense.com/general20/eisenhowerWH.htm
Surely you must believe this CSS.
The Martian moon Phobos, generally accepted as a celestial body, actually may be an artificial satellite launched long ago by an advanced Martian race, according to Dr. S. Fred Singer, special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments. No mention was made of the other Mars moon, Deimos.
http://www.rense.com/general20/eisenhowerWH.htm
Surely you must believe this CSS.
Naa, I'm sticking with the captured asteriod/comet hypothesis with subsequent movement to an equatorial planar orbit for both Phobos and Deimos.