Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Paul B. Andersen on 7 Oct 2005 11:01 Androcles wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: > | We have learned that Androcles is so stupid > | that he fails to realize that his statement: > | "If the Moon were a fluid it would break > | apart like droplets of mercury." > | is factually wrong. > > Learn the contrapositive. > The moon does not break up into droplets of mercury, therefore > the moon is not fluid. That's a fact. Now, THAT'S an interesting bit of logic. :-) Let A = fluid Moon and B = Moon breaks apart Now you claim: A => B and you "prove" that by claiming that ((NOT B) => (NOT A)) = true is an observed fact. But is it? Of course it isn't. The observed fact is: ((NOT B) AND (NOT A)) = true The fact is that: ((NOT B) => (NOT A)) = false of the very same reason as (A => B) = false The fact that the Moon hasn't broken apart doesn't _imply_ that it is NOT fluid, and a fluid Moon doesn't _imply_ that it would break apart. Quite the contrary. As I have told you several times: | You would have to bring the Moon very close to | the Earth before anything like that would happen. | The critical distance is the Roche limit. | The Roche limit for a liquid Moon is 2.86 Earth radii. | The orbital radius is 21 times bigger than that. | A liquid Moon would do just fine. | And its shape would be the same. | (A sphere slightly distorted by the tidal forces.) > You are a stupid tusselad who thinks Algol is eclipsed by an accretion > disk that bounces of the surface, that's a fact. You didn't get that quite right, did you? :-) > > | Androcles' comment: > | " I preceeded that with "If", tusselad; how could you > | screw up such a simple case of elementary logic?" > | have taught us that Androcles is so stupid that he thinks > | his statement: "If the Moon were a fluid > | it would break apart like droplets of mercury." > | is correct just because it starts with an "If". > | > | Androcles' comment: > | "The rings of Saturn are factually wrong, are they, tusselad?" > | has further taught us that Androcles is so stupid that he > | thinks that unless the Moon of the planet Earth would break > | apart like droplets of mercury if it were fluid, the rings > | of the planet Saturn cannot exist. And now we have learned that Androcles is so stupid that he believes: ((NOT B) AND (NOT A)) = (A => B) http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html Paul
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 7 Oct 2005 12:03 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote in message news:1128697195.580090.252290(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... | | Androcles wrote: | > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: | > | We have learned that Androcles is so stupid | > | that he fails to realize that his statement: | > | "If the Moon were a fluid it would break | > | apart like droplets of mercury." | > | is factually wrong. | > | > Learn the contrapositive. | > The moon does not break up into droplets of mercury, therefore | > the moon is not fluid. That's a fact. | | Now, THAT'S an interesting bit of logic. :-) Nah... old hat. | | Let A = fluid Moon | and B = Moon breaks apart | | Now you claim: | A => B | | and you "prove" that by claiming that | ((NOT B) => (NOT A)) = true | is an observed fact. | | But is it? Of course it isn't. | The observed fact is: | ((NOT B) AND (NOT A)) = true You can "AND" with "the moon has craters" AND "the Sun shines" AND "daffodils are yellow", all of which are observed facts, it makes no difference. We don't need the "AND". ((NOT B) => (NOT A)) = true is an observed fact, but is it, yes it is, and anyone that says "Of course it isn't" has to be a raving lunatic OR tusselad INCLUSIVE OR both. Not too logical, are you? [skip over reading the rant, leave for posterity]. | | The fact is that: | ((NOT B) => (NOT A)) = false | of the very same reason as | (A => B) = false | | The fact that the Moon hasn't broken apart | doesn't _imply_ that it is NOT fluid, | and a fluid Moon doesn't _imply_ that it | would break apart. | | Quite the contrary. | As I have told you several times: || You would have to bring the Moon very close to || the Earth before anything like that would happen. || The critical distance is the Roche limit. || The Roche limit for a liquid Moon is 2.86 Earth radii. || The orbital radius is 21 times bigger than that. || A liquid Moon would do just fine. || And its shape would be the same. || (A sphere slightly distorted by the tidal forces.) Yes indeed. We can see the moon, we can't see the binary system you claim Algol is. The K2 is too close to the B8, but you haven't tempered your claim with an "IF". You've stated the K2 IS a component of the binary Algol system, and now you want to divert attention away from the fact that you are totally illogical. Algol is a binary star system, one of which is an accretion disk that bounces off the surface, isn't it, quite the contrary? It is quite the contrary amazing you haven't made it to crank.net. Here are some that have: Ken Seto, http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/ Henri Wilson http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/H-aether.htm Len Gaasenbeek http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek/ Perspicacious http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf Why don't you write up a web page and get on the honours list? I tried but I can't find me there, you may have more success. This should do it: "But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and density, and the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit of the K2, while the K2 is just at the Roche limit of the B8. That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and mass is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart and there is an accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn. (This accretion disk is not stable, though. It is a transient disk; the mass transferred from the K2 bounces off the surface of the B8 and eventually falls back to the surface.) " | | > You are a stupid tusselad who thinks Algol is eclipsed by an accretion | > disk that bounces of the surface, that's a fact. | | You didn't get that quite right, did you? :-) What did I miss? The B8 is eclipsed by an accretion disk, perhaps? The original data you supplied? I can easily google for it. | | > | > | Androcles' comment: | > | " I preceeded that with "If", tusselad; how could you | > | screw up such a simple case of elementary logic?" | > | have taught us that Androcles is so stupid that he thinks | > | his statement: "If the Moon were a fluid | > | it would break apart like droplets of mercury." | > | is correct just because it starts with an "If". | > | | > | Androcles' comment: | > | "The rings of Saturn are factually wrong, are they, tusselad?" | > | has further taught us that Androcles is so stupid that he | > | thinks that unless the Moon of the planet Earth would break | > | apart like droplets of mercury if it were fluid, the rings | > | of the planet Saturn cannot exist. | | And now we have learned that Androcles is | so stupid that he believes: | ((NOT B) AND (NOT A)) = (A => B) I didn't write that, tusselad. You did. Would you like to be sued for libel? It won't help your career as assistant janitor at HIA, or whatever it is you do there. Androcles.
From: brian a m stuckless on 7 Oct 2005 13:58 The Moon already has a large bulge on EARth side that constantly remains "bobbing". The bulge is a PENDuLUM. [One Moon rotation PERiOD is One MoON orbital PERiOD]. [ Which means, the bulge constantly POiNTs at EARth ]. With the Moon liquid, that bulge will be much GREATER. [With an OCEAN on EARth side, constantly ..OTHERwise]; Calculate how various size lunar oceans would POiNT.!! A lunar OCEAN would POiNT at EARth.!! ..you SPLASH DOWN and SURF ashore.!! ```Brian >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> aul B. Andersen wrote: > Androcles wrote: > As I have told you several times: > | You would have to bring the Moon very close to > | the Earth before anything like that would happen. > | The critical distance is the Roche limit. > | The Roche limit for a liquid Moon is 2.86 Earth radii. > | The orbital radius is 21 times bigger than that. > | A liquid Moon would do just fine. > | And its shape would be the same. > | (A sphere slightly distorted by the tidal forces.) > > Paul
From: bz on 7 Oct 2005 15:01 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:kuv5k15e65jjb9f44egkok6qht68k537c0(a)4ax.com: > Oh, there could be. The brightness curves would be just about the same. > The main difference is that the one involving an eclipse is dead flat > between the troughs. That is assuming 'uniform brightness' of the star being eclipsed (which isn't true because of the geometry of a spherical radiatior) and no gravity lensing. > ..unlike Algol's , which has a distinct > concavity....just as the BaT predicts. > -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Paul B. Andersen on 7 Oct 2005 15:54
Androcles wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote in message > news:1128697195.580090.252290(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > | > | Androcles wrote: > | > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: > | > | We have learned that Androcles is so stupid > | > | that he fails to realize that his statement: > | > | "If the Moon were a fluid it would break > | > | apart like droplets of mercury." > | > | is factually wrong. > | > > | > Learn the contrapositive. > | > The moon does not break up into droplets of mercury, therefore > | > the moon is not fluid. That's a fact. > | > | Now, THAT'S an interesting bit of logic. :-) > > Nah... old hat. > > | > | Let A = fluid Moon > | and B = Moon breaks apart > | > | Now you claim: > | A => B > | > | and you "prove" that by claiming that > | ((NOT B) => (NOT A)) = true > | is an observed fact. > | > | But is it? Of course it isn't. > | The observed fact is: > | ((NOT B) AND (NOT A)) = true > > You can "AND" with "the moon has craters" AND "the Sun shines" AND > "daffodils are yellow", all of which are observed facts, it makes no > difference. > We don't need the "AND". > ((NOT B) => (NOT A)) = true is an observed fact, but is it, yes it is, > and > anyone that says "Of course it isn't" has to be a raving lunatic OR > tusselad > INCLUSIVE OR both. > > Not too logical, are you? But I am learning Androclean logic. I have now learned to use the contra-positive the Androclean way. Claim: If Androcles were in Norway, he would break up into droplets of mercury. Proof: Androcles does not break up into droplets of mercury, therefore Androcles is not in Norway. That's a fact. So you better stay away from Norway, Androcles. We would not like to be mercury poisoned. > | The fact is that: > | ((NOT B) => (NOT A)) = false > | of the very same reason as > | (A => B) = false > | > | The fact that the Moon hasn't broken apart > | doesn't _imply_ that it is NOT fluid, > | and a fluid Moon doesn't _imply_ that it > | would break apart. [..] > | And now we have learned that Androcles is > | so stupid that he believes: > | ((NOT B) AND (NOT A)) = (A => B) > > I didn't write that, tusselad. You did. Indeed. I never said you wrote it, I said you believed it. > Would you like to be sued for libel? It is well documented above that you believe ((NOT B) AND (NOT A)) = (A => B) so please sue me, Androcles. Paul |