The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-06-2013, 01:13 PM   #126
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
I'm sure you would prefer a world filled with ignorance and superstition. Then you could sell more books.
Start with your own irrationality.

Your liberalism is repugnant.

You rail against the moneyed interests and the widening gap between rich and poor here -- yet you countenance the insane wars and covert ops against many nations on behalf of those same interests.

You make absobloominutely no sense.

MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 02:45 PM   #127
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,946
Default

gaffe, how much mass did Pan-STAARS gain?

Check with McCanney.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 05:08 PM   #128
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,214
Default

W*gs, admit it. You never even read his comet paper -- yet presume to know what's in it.

Stupid moron.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 05:42 PM   #129
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
W*gs, admit it. You never even read his comet paper -- yet presume to know what's in it.
I read his comet paper. It's baloney. Wrong from the get-go.

How much mass did Pan-STAARS gain, gaffe, in accordance with McCanney's theory?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney
Stupid moron.
Indeed. If you're such a an expert on McCanney's theory, you should be able to answer my question.

Chicken.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 12:08 PM   #130
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,214
Default

All I have ever said is -- let's design an experiment to test McCanney's model.

That's how science works.

Arrogant bastards like you presume to know better -- no need to test.

But you can't even explain where lightning comes from.

MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:59 PM   #131
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
All I have ever said is -- let's design an experiment to test McCanney's model.
We don't even need to go that far. One of his claims is that comets gain mass. Plait showed that utterly false, just based on simple physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney
Arrogant bastards like you presume to know better -- no need to test.
If McCanney's model only works if virtually all physics is overturned, well, that's a mighty big order to fill.

Who's the arrogant one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney
But you can't even explain where lightning comes from.
You can't explain how Hale-Bopp gained mass and yet wasn't destroyed in the process.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 01:47 PM   #132
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
We don't even need to go that far. One of his claims is that comets gain mass. Plait showed that utterly false, just based on simple physics.



If McCanney's model only works if virtually all physics is overturned, well, that's a mighty big order to fill.

Who's the arrogant one?



You can't explain how Hale-Bopp gained mass and yet wasn't destroyed in the process.
Where exactly did Plait overturn McCanney?
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 01:56 PM   #133
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Where exactly did Plait overturn McCanney?
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...4&postcount=49
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 01:23 PM   #134
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,214
Default

OK. I read Plait's critique of McCanney's comet model. I got two sentences into it -- before I encountered his first error.

Plait mis states the model. He obviously does not understand what McCanney is saying.

According to Plait, McCanney is saying that large comets gain mass "by having small particles slam into it as it plows through the solar wind and other material."

Wrong. This is not McCanney's model. If it were I would agree with Plait. But it isn't.

This confirms my earlier conclusion that Plait never even bothered to read McCanney's paper.

Recall, I wrote Plait and asked him about this, but he never responded. I interpreted that non - response as a "no." What you have posted confirms to me that I was right to do so.

McCanney's model incorporates electromagnetism into a new model of the solar system.

The need for such a new model is apparent. After all, the present paradigm cannot explain lightning - which is a pretty serous anomaly considering that all of the planets with atmospheres are known to have lightning.

Even Mars -- with a very thin atmosphere -- may have it.

What is the source of this electricity? Well, considering that the outer part of the sun is a seething ocean of free electrons -- in other words -- an electrical furnace, this ought to lead us to wonder if electricity travels through space.

McCanney says yes. I agree.

There is hard evidence that gigantic electrical discharges have scoured various planetary surfaces in the past -- Mars and the moon show evidence of this.

Put this together -- and you ought to be led to ask -- is the sun an electrical generator? And does this electricity reach the planets --- and comets?

McCanney says yes. Again I agree -- it's totally plausible.

We need to test the model.

W*gs can crawl back into his dark hole.

MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 02:10 PM   #135
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
OK. I read Plait's critique of McCanney's comet model. I got two sentences into it -- before I encountered his first error.

Plait mis states the model. He obviously does not understand what McCanney is saying.

According to Plait, McCanney is saying that large comets gain mass "by having small particles slam into it as it plows through the solar wind and other material."

Wrong. This is not McCanney's model. If it were I would agree with Plait. But it isn't.
McCanney's model is indeed that comets gain mass.

Until that error is fixed, everything else he says is wrong.

Do you have some sort of contractual agreement with McCanney?

http://www.redicecreations.com/speci...allinhell.html

and then

http://rense.com/general54/trueor.htm

from which:

Quote:
In his article, "The Nature of and Origins of Comets and the Evolution of Celestial Bodies (Part 1), Kronos, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall 1983, McCanney writes, "...a comet involved in the discharge of the solar capacitor will continue to grow in size and mass...."

"Curved tails, such as in Donati's comet, when it neared the Sun, are a result of the matter in the Zodiacal disk falling into the comet nucleus...."

"This causes a buildup of material on the asteroidal comet nucleus....Comets eventually evolve into planets...."
You're lying, gaffe. Lying through your teeth.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 03:16 PM   #136
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,214
Default

You are the modern equivalent of the medieval bishop who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

The present science model is inadequate. You ought to be open to a new way of seeing and understanding -- but very predictably you are trapped in your itty bitty box.

You can't even explain lightning -- you ffffing moron.

MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 03:23 PM   #137
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
You are the modern equivalent of the medieval bishop who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

The present science model is inadequate. You ought to be open to a new way of seeing and understanding -- but very predictably you are trapped in your itty bitty box.

You can't even explain lightning -- you ffffing moron.
I've proven that you're a liar.

Again.

You (and McCanney) are not modern-day Galileos. You both are a couple of flakes. At least McCanney doesn't enrich himself profiting from the corpses of innocent victims, like you do.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 04:30 PM   #138
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,214
Default

Plait mis characterized the plasma discharge comet model.

If you are going to rebut a hypothesis you should first understand it. You can't rebut it (nor confirm it) if you don't understand it.

I believe it was Niels Bohr who said that scientific revolutions happen when the old guard -- those who refuse to give up the old model -- die off.

The next generation embraces the new model -- and takes it for granted.

W*gs represents the old guard -- too rigid in his thinking to make the urgently needed paradigm shift.

May they and he die off soon - so that we can move forward and save the planet. Good riddance. Sayonara.

MHG

Last edited by mhgaffney; 04-10-2013 at 04:50 PM..
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 06:34 PM   #139
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Plait mis characterized the plasma discharge comet model.
McCanney himself said that comets gain mass.

Plait showed that to be impossible.

Game, set, match to Plait.

McCanney needs to start over.

And you're a liar, gaffe. A bald-faced liar.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 02:13 PM   #140
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,214
Default

Again, neither W*gs nor Plait understand what McCanney is saying. Let me attempt to explain why.

Check out this amazing 1997 UV photo (below) of Comet Hale-Bopp. At the center is the comet. But notice the surrounding cloud of hydrogen -- proton ions -- which was 60 million miles wide --

What is going on here?

This photo is hard evidence that the nucleus of Hale Bopp (hence all comets) was negatively charged.

The negatively charged comet nucleus has attracted the solar wind -- positively charged protons (hydrogen nuclei = positively charged proton ions)

This is proof that electromagnetism plays a powerful role in the solar system. W*gs denies this.

According to Plait, McCanney says the comet attracts the solar wind and gains mass. Nonsense. Yes, it attracts hydrogen but it cannot hold it. Hydrogen is the lightest element. Not even earth is massive enough to hold hydrogen -- which is constantly leaking from earth's atmosphere. Only the largest planets, Jupiter, Saturn etc., have enough gravity to hold hydrogen.

The mass gain in the comet nucleus happens in a different way -- which W*gs again does not understand.

MHG
Attached Images
File Type: gif swa009.gif (76.0 KB, 19 views)
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 02:16 PM   #141
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
According to Plait, McCanney says the comet attracts the solar wind and gains mass. Nonsense.
You're lying. Again.

Plait doesn't say that McCanney says.

McCanney says:

Quote:
In his article, "The Nature of and Origins of Comets and the Evolution of Celestial Bodies (Part 1), Kronos, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall 1983, McCanney writes, "...a comet involved in the discharge of the solar capacitor will continue to grow in size and mass...."

"Curved tails, such as in Donati's comet, when it neared the Sun, are a result of the matter in the Zodiacal disk falling into the comet nucleus...."

"This causes a buildup of material on the asteroidal comet nucleus....Comets eventually evolve into planets...."
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 02:30 PM   #142
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,214
Default

Plait is an idiot, W*gs, and so are you.

My above post shows that cometary nuclei are negatively charged. You should be asking why? Answer this question and you would understand why cometary tails are not moving away from the nucleus but toward it. This is the key insight -- and is counter intuitive -- but I believe correct.

And if the nucleus is massive enough -- the comet will hold that material (dust and positive ions that are much heavier than hydrogen.).

But instead of asking the key question -- you do the only thing you know how to do -- launch a personal attack.

Pathetic.

Last edited by mhgaffney; 04-11-2013 at 02:35 PM..
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 07:38 PM   #143
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Plait is an idiot, W*gs, and so are you.
Your standard response when you're in waaaaaay over your head. Never mind it's the kiddie pool end.

Even the simplest and most basic physics are far past your ability to comprehend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney
And if the nucleus is massive enough -- the comet will hold that material (dust and positive ions that are much heavier than hydrogen.).
Here it is again:

Quote:
Imagine McCanney's scenario: an asteroid the size of the Moon is moving through the solar system. It gains mass, so much so that in roughly one year (the time Hale-Bopp spent in the inner solar system) it gains enough mass to equal the mass of Mercury. It does this by having small particles slam into it as it plows through the solar wind and other material.

OK, so let's think about this. What happens when a particle hits the surface of that object? The particle is moving pretty fast, and that motion has energy (called kinetic energy). That energy has to go somehwere, and in a collision like this the energy is released as heat. Kinetic energy depends on the mass of the object and its velocity. The mass might be small for each particle, but there are a lot of particles; enough, according to McCanney, to more than quadruple the comet mass! Also, the velocities of collision are quite high. Near the Earth, such collisions are typically 40 or 50 kilometers per second. But let's be generous to McCanney, and say the velocities are much lower, say, 10 km/sec. You'll see why this is generous in just a minute.

The amount of energy released as heat is easy to calculate in this case; it's roughly 1038 ergs. An erg is a small unit, but 1038 is an awful lot of them. The total energy released by the Sun every second is only about 4 x 1033 ergs, so the energy the comet "feels" from impact is more than 25,000 times the Sun's total energy output! Another way to think about it: a one megaton nuclear bomb (about 50 times the explosive energy of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki) releases about 4 x 1022 ergs, so the amount of energy absorbed by the comet as it gains all that mass is the same as dropping 2,500,000,000,000,000 nuclear bombs on it. Since the mass is gained in less than a year, that's the same as exploding 80 million nuclear bombs per second on the comet.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm thinking a comet wouldn't do so well under such treatment.

Obviously, that's so much energy that it would easily vaporize the comet. The amount of energy it takes to totally destroy an object can be calculated in a number of ways. One way is to use what's called its gravitational binding energy. I won't go into details, but I'll point out a terrific page that describes it (using the Death Star from Star Wars as an example!). It turns out that to vaporize a comet of the Moon's mass, it would take about 1036 ergs, or one-hundredth the heat released by the impacts. So, ironically, the heat caused by McCanney's mass gain is actually enough to destroy the comet itself!

I'll note that a comet is not held together by just gravity, but also by molecular bonds and other forces. This means it would take more energy to vaporize one. It could conceivably be a much closer contest between the amount of energy holding the comet together, and the amount trying to tear it apart. However, this amount of heat generated is still enormous (enough to make the comet shine as brightly as 80 million nuclear bombs per second, remember), and I already showed comets are not hot, but cold. And of course, the solar wind is neutral, and comets lose mass. Don't forget those! So McCanney is wrong on all these counts.

Remember too I was generous with the collision velocity. The higher the velocity, the higher the kinetic energy, and the more heat generated per impact. In reality, the velocities are much higher, resulting in a heat energy more than ten times what I calculated! So that's what I meant by being generous. The numbers are even worse for McCanney's theory than I calculated, making him even more wrong. If that's possible.

Conclusion: if Hale-Bopp had gained mass the way McCanney claimed, the heat of this would have torn it apart. And if they were as big as he claims, we'd know it. McCanney is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney
But instead of asking the key question -- you do the only thing you know how to do -- launch a personal attack.
The key question? It's how can:

Quote:
n his article, "The Nature of and Origins of Comets and the Evolution of Celestial Bodies (Part 1), Kronos, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall 1983, McCanney writes, "...a comet involved in the discharge of the solar capacitor will continue to grow in size and mass...."

"Curved tails, such as in Donati's comet, when it neared the Sun, are a result of the matter in the Zodiacal disk falling into the comet nucleus...."

"This causes a buildup of material on the asteroidal comet nucleus....Comets eventually evolve into planets...."
be reconciled with the very basic calculation Plait did?

Explain, liar.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 07:56 PM   #144
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,977

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Used to be kind of funny to watch gaff-o flail around in his vast ignorance of physics.

Now it's just terribly sad.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 08:09 PM   #145
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Your standard response when you're in waaaaaay over your head. Never mind it's the kiddie pool end.
Much like yourself. Maybe you're his example?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 09:12 PM   #146
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,946
Default

nyuk drowns in a thimble.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 06:13 AM   #147
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,000

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
nyuk drowns in a thimble.
Well, she once fell for Marxism, so she's got that going for her.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 07:39 AM   #148
IHaveALight
the sun is gone
 
IHaveALight's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,272
Default

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. As far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality-Einstein

In the absence of uncertainty there can be no creativity #CosmicConsciousness - Deepak Chopra

IHaveALight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 07:54 AM   #149
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IHaveALight View Post
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. As far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality-Einstein
That we are not omniscient does not mean we're completely ignorant.

Duh.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 08:07 AM   #150
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,240
Default

Deepak Chopra....
BroncoInferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:41 PM.


Denver Broncos