• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

The Other Side of Midnight - Richard C. Hoagland - Live Chat Thread

Started by cosmic hobo, June 24, 2015, 09:00:52 PM





GravitySucks

Quote from: astroguy on January 14, 2018, 11:24:08 PM
NO, Pangaea did NOT last 300 million years, it was 150 million, tops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

When did the Anunaki arrive here on Nibiru the first time?

astroguy

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 14, 2018, 11:31:11 PM
When did the Anunaki arrive here on Nibiru the first time?
Wasn't it allegedly 450,000 years?  Earth would've looked very similar to how it does now.

astroguy

Inflation ≠ Big Bang

Inflation is a separate hypothesis that's used to explain some things we see in the universe, Big Bang model is independent of inflation.  Inflation does solve a problem, but they are separable.

comaphobe

Is there a direct link available or do you still have to listen from the bloated blog page?

I'll just pretend I am listening.

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: astroguy on January 14, 2018, 11:42:22 PM
Inflation ≠ Big Bang

Inflation is a separate hypothesis that's used to explain some things we see in the universe, Big Bang model is independent of inflation.  Inflation does solve a problem, but they are separable.

I thought they're connected in the sense that the big bang is seen as the impetus of expansion? ???


Dr. MD MD

I'm not sure if this is just a basic misunderstanding of chemistry by Neal or if he's actually onto something.  ???


astroguy

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on January 14, 2018, 11:51:53 PM
I'm not sure if this is just a basic misunderstanding of chemistry by Neal or if he's actually onto something.  ???
There are so many things wrong with what he's saying.  It's one of the problems with "armchair scientists" -- he sees some basics of an idea, thinks he knows what it means, and then does whatever he wants with it, using arguments from ridicule along the way.  He's just like those sovereign citizens who use the English language to claim various legal things, except he does it with words in science.

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: astroguy on January 14, 2018, 11:58:32 PM
There are so many things wrong with what he's saying.  It's one of the problems with "armchair scientists" -- he sees some basics of an idea, thinks he knows what it means, and then does whatever he wants with it, using arguments from ridicule along the way.  He's just like those sovereign citizens who use the English language to claim various legal things, except he does it with words in science.

Honestly, I'm still not entirely sure what he's getting at here but he sounds passionate.

astroguy

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on January 15, 2018, 12:00:58 AM
Honestly, I'm still not entirely sure what he's getting at here but he sounds passionate.
He knows his material as well as RCH knows his.  He's been spouting the same nonsense for well over a decade.  Here's what he's getting at, in a nutshell:  He thinks that a planet with all the land in one part looks silly, therefore Earth was smaller in the past, and it's growing.  To get it to grow, he needs to create matter.  So he plays around with fundamental particles, creates some of his own, and makes up some way for things to combine to create matter to grow the planet.

If you keep that in mind, then this will at least be slightly followable.


GravitySucks

Quote from: astroguy on January 15, 2018, 12:04:40 AM
He knows his material as well as RCH knows his.  He's been spouting the same nonsense for well over a decade.  Here's what he's getting at, in a nutshell:  He thinks that a planet with all the land in one part looks silly, therefore Earth was smaller in the past, and it's growing.  To get it to grow, he needs to create matter.  So he plays around with fundamental particles, creates some of his own, and makes up some way for things to combine to create matter to grow the planet.

If you keep that in mind, then this will at least be slightly followable.

As the earth grows, does it stay flat?


astroguy

Yup, here's a great example of him abusing terms and concepts, saying that there's an equal-opposite force, what's the opposite to gravity?  That's not how the concepts works.



Dr. MD MD

Quote from: astroguy on January 15, 2018, 12:11:34 AM
Yup, here's a great example of him abusing terms and concepts, saying that there's an equal-opposite force, what's the opposite to gravity?  That's not how the concepts works.

I think perhaps the word force may not be legitimately applicable to gravity, no?

astroguy

OMG NOT EVEN HOAGLAND KNOWS HOW TIDES WORK

It's not centrifugal nor centripetal force.  Water close to moon is pulled more than the body of the planet, which is pulled more than water on the other side of the planet.  Thus, you get two tidal bulges, one because it's pulled the most towards the moon, one because it's pulled less towards the moon.

Also, Hoagland is right, Moon goes about 2288 miles per hour around Earth.

astroguy

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on January 15, 2018, 12:13:26 AM
I think perhaps the word force may not be legitimately applicable to gravity, no?
It's the "reaction" part.  The single force causes equal/opposite action/reaction, it's not an equal/opposite force.

astroguy

OMFG THIS IS AMAZING.  Two+ minutes spent arguing over a factor of 2 of how fast Moon moves around Earth.

The guys aren't winning each other over tonight.  Neal may hang up on Hoagie. 

Jackstar

Quote from: astroguy on January 15, 2018, 12:14:58 AM
Also, Hoagland is right, Moon goes about 2288 miles per hour around Earth.

What does any of this nerdrage bullshit have to do with the secret war in secret space? Oh, that's right, ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING

Let's focus on why we're here.

GravitySucks

Quote from: astroguy on January 15, 2018, 12:14:58 AM
OMG NOT EVEN HOAGLAND KNOWS HOW TIDES WORK

It's not centrifugal nor centripetal force.  Water close to moon is pulled more than the body of the planet, which is pulled more than water on the other side of the planet.  Thus, you get two tidal bulges, one because it's pulled the most towards the moon, one because it's pulled less towards the moon.

Also, Hoagland is right, Moon goes about 2288 miles per hour around Earth.

Ground speed or air speed?

albrecht

Quote from: astroguy on January 15, 2018, 12:04:40 AM
He knows his material as well as RCH knows his.  He's been spouting the same nonsense for well over a decade.  Here's what he's getting at, in a nutshell:  He thinks that a planet with all the land in one part looks silly, therefore Earth was smaller in the past, and it's growing.  To get it to grow, he needs to create matter.  So he plays around with fundamental particles, creates some of his own, and makes up some way for things to combine to create matter to grow the planet.

If you keep that in mind, then this will at least be slightly followable.
This is for you, Astroguy! Mentioning "particles" always make me think of his* take on "particles."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KnPBg-tanE

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_von_Foerster
was an Austrian American scientist combining physics and philosophy, and widely attributed as the originator of Second-order cybernetics. He was twice a Guggenheim fellow (1956â€"57 and 1963â€"64) and also was a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1980. He is well known for his 1960 Doomsday equation formula published in Science predicting future population growth

astroguy

Quote from: GravitySucks on January 15, 2018, 12:20:51 AM
Ground speed or air speed?
Moon doesn't travel through air.

Okay, I can't listen to this anymore.  80 minutes of this level of stupid is enough for me for one night.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod