beecee

I'm not dismissing Newton's law/s, the facts as shown and evidenced completely refute what you claim by the draft. The direction the tail is pointing changes as the comet orbits and always points away from the Sun, which is at times in the direction from whence the comet is coming from...in front of it. Is being so obtuse the only answer you have to being totally wrong? Is it that hard to admit and accept you are wrong? I'm afraid I've just had another "huh?" moment. The twisting of spacetime is related to the rotation of the Earth, and is simply a variation in the geometry of the spacetime curvature caused by the mass...and it certainly adds nothing to you silly claims.

Someone with more expertise then me can handle that.

Bullshit. What keeps the comet in orbit is the spacetime curvature caused by the mass of the Sun and which we call gravity. nothing more, nothing less. That does not support your nonsensical unevidenced claim one bit. Our entire solar system, controlled by the Sun, is orbiting the galactic center which is governed by the gravity of all the other stellar systems and the SMBH at the core.

Huh? What the hell are you on about? Your obtuseness is now way out of hand. According to your nonsensical mythical approach to physics, the tail of the comet should always be behind in the draft as you have labeled it. That isn't the case because space is mainly a vacuum, and the direction of the tail is controlled by the Solar wind....pretty simple really. I believe you are now getting desperate and saying whatever comes into your mind. The parameters that define an orbit has just been given to you.

Excellent! I await with bated breath for his reply and that excellent observation.

Yeah another great observational point re the claims being made...Venus takes 243 days to rotate on its axis, and 224 days to orbit the Sun, making a day longer then the Venusian year, and of course it has a very dense atmosphere.

But as I have mentioned many times the "grandiose human outpost" is going to get less and less "grandiose" as time goes on. As yet, I have not put a time frame on any of these events. Let me now change that......Return to the Moon? within 50 years. A Lunar outpost, 100 years. Feet on Mars, a 100 years. Outpost on Mars, 150 years. I have given myself plenty of leeway in all those predictions.

Your posts are totally ignorant of modern day physics and GR, or you are trolling. Spacetime is that which we observe to be curved, bent, and twisted in the presence of mass/energy.The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant. Mathematics, or numbers as you put it is the language of physics. Your version is no more real and/or evidenced then the Tooth fairy, and apparently just some nonsense you seem to have fabricated in your spare time.

I tend to put on bulk fairly easily, hovering between being pleasantly plump to fat. In the times I have found it necessary to lose a few kilos I undertake a reasonable amount of brisk walking and a steady somewhat reduced diet, with most of the scrumptious fatty foods in moderation....Xmas is always a bad time for me as I love getting into the peanuts while drinking VB.

The mathematical singularity where GR fails us, involves infinite spacetime curvature and infinite density, and this is why cosmologists do not believe it exists. Although we have no actual empirical evidence of what happens inside a BH, GR does tell us that once the Schwarzchild radius of any given mass is reached, further collapse is compulsory. But at the quantum/Planck level GR fails us, so it is I believe reasonable to assume that the mass resides somewhere at that level, before the infinities are reached. At the same time once any matter crosses the EH, it undergoes increasing stress [elongation/spaghetification] from the tidal gravity effects and depending on the size of the BH, will be broken down into its most basic fundamental parts, on its way to or at the quantum/planck/Singularity level. I think I have that reasonably accurate, if not someone who knows better can correct.

We, the forum in general, have been over many things with you, and they still all remain elusive to you, including your total misinterpretation of perfection and natural selection. So once again, as per your other threads, everyone else is wrong, despite the evidence that has been linked to, to support their interpretation/s, and you remain the only one right...Do I have this correct? Here we go again, putting words and your agenda laden opinion into someone else's mouth and then expecting the forum to swallow it hollus bollus. . Darwin was a religious man as well as a scientist. His beliefs or otherwise have been added to, improved, sometimes modified, to align with the extended observations today, and guess what? the scientific method. You are a philosopher with nothing concrete to add, and an obvious leaning to invalidate or caste doubt on the reliability and legitimacy of science. In that you have failed. Thereby rests half your problem....Imagining/fabricating scenarios/myths that align with your misinterpretation/s

The speed of light in a vacuum, "c" is simply a universal constant. If there were things that could go faster then light, it would violate causality....eg: you would get this reply before I posted it. This also applies to whether the source of the light is moving or not...eg: If you are travelling in a car at 80kms/hr and shone a torch ahead of you, the light from that torch would not be travelling at 300,000kms/sec plus 80kms/hr, it would still be travelling [leaving the torch at 300,000 kms/sec. It is from those facts that Einstein deduced that it is time and space that are changing. This is known as length contraction and time dilation. This may explain it all better.....

Three early posts I believe short circuited whatever the argument put in the OP was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz_B8JP2pA8 It's not Frank, but is relevant to this thread.

I recall one of the men who walked on the Moon describing it as "magnificent desolation"

Funny you should mention that. In 1974 I achieved 15 years service for the company I worked for and with which I did my apprenticeship....I was still a single man at that time and decided to take my 15 weeks leave and do something "different" To make a long story short, I ended up flying over to Panama, to meet up with a 3 masted, square rigged barquentine and sailed back to Sydney making many fantastically interesting stops on the way, not the least being a stop at the Galapagos Islands for three days.....the best 4 months of my life even to today. Costs/benefits also probably will improve over time. Musk's reusable/returnable rocket was a starter and as yet I don't believe the full benefits of that have yet been borne home.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-mars-oxygen-life.html alty water just below the surface of Mars could hold enough oxygen to support the kind of microbial life that emerged and flourished on Earth billions of years ago, researchers reported Monday. In some locations, the amount of oxygen available could even keep alive a primitive, multicellular animal such as a sponge, they reported in the journal Nature Geosciences. "We discovered that brines"—water with high concentrations of salt—"on Mars can contain enough oxygen for microbes to breathe," said lead author Vlada Stamenkovic, a theoretical physicist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. "This fully revolutionises our understanding of the potential for life on Mars, today and in the past," he told AFP. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-mars-oxygen-life.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0243-0 O2 solubility in Martian near-surface environments and implications for aerobic life: Abstract Due to the scarcity of O2 in the modern Martian atmosphere, Mars has been assumed to be incapable of producing environments with sufficiently large concentrations of O2 to support aerobic respiration. Here, we present a thermodynamic framework for the solubility of O2 in brines under Martian near-surface conditions. We find that modern Mars can support liquid environments with dissolved O2 values ranging from ~2.5 × 10−6 mol m−3 to 2 mol m−3 across the planet, with particularly high concentrations in polar regions because of lower temperatures at higher latitudes promoting O2 entry into brines. General circulation model simulations show that O2concentrations in near-surface environments vary both spatially and with time—the latter associated with secular changes in obliquity, or axial tilt. Even at the limits of the uncertainties, our findings suggest that there can be near-surface environments on Mars with sufficient O2 available for aerobic microbes to breathe. Our findings may help to explain the formation of highly oxidized phases in Martian rocks observed with Mars rovers, and imply that opportunities for aerobic life may exist on modern Mars and on other planetary bodies with sources of O2independent of photosynthesis.

I'm sure there are also scientific advantages in going to Mars also....Robotic missions confirmed the presence of water...How much more would boots on the Red Planet possibly confirm or find..ETL? I dont know. It is far more then a cool adventure of discovery of which I'm certain, and just the fact that NASA and others at this time are doing research into aspects of such a long dangerous trip, is in itself beneficial to mankind....the efforts to protect from the radiation problem come to mind. And again as a reminder, I'm not putting any time factor on any of this. If we can survive our follies here on Earth and any potential catastrophic disaster like a meteor hit, say for another 10,000 years, where will we be? I have already conceded that Ken, [and yourself] have some valid points, I just don't believe that will stop man, or should stop man, from going where he has never gone before.

Like this bloke? and another..... Yeah yeah OK, I go back before the seventies!

Yes, plenty of that certainly....the applied perfection nonsense, claiming Newtonian did not predict Neptune, your often reference towards the unscientific creationism or ID myth and on it goes. and has since around 2015. Now Reg, instead of childishly asking me to bet my house and all I own, [something you know can never happen and just some pretentious bravado on your part] why not instead make a genuine effort, without any unreal similaries or poor analogies, just properly refute the many claims by myself and others re your many mistakes here and elsewhere. You know what they are. Just continually and stubbornly repeating them, does not make them any more valid. But anyway lets add some more interesting and far more valid scenarios re the supposed object of this thread....... https://www.quora.com/To-what-extent-is-scientists-admiration-of-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-dependent-upon-its-perfection Perfection? If by “Darwin’s theory of evolution” you mean what Darwin wrote in Origin of Species and Descent of Man and other books about evolution, then FYI evolution was far from “perfect”. Natural selection did not work in the theory of genetics of the time. Some of Darwin’s specific evolutionary lineages were wrong. His explanation for “gaps” in the fossil record was wrong. His description of the evolution of wingless beetles on islands was wrong. His reasoning for his claim that women were less accomplished than men was wrong. The theory of evolution has undergone major revisions since Darwin. Most notable is the merging of Mendelian genetics with evolution that is the Modern Synthesis. However, In science, admiration of a theory depends on whether it is supported by data. Is that what is meant by “perfection” here? Is the word “perfection” meant to describe a theory that explains much otherwise unexplainable data? Evolution has always done that. “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Theodosius Dobzhansky. The ability to explain phenomenon that no other theory could explain, even with the faults, was always a strength of Darwin’s original theory. For instance, no other theory could explain why islands with nearly identical climate and geography had such differences in flora and fauna as the Cape St. Verde and Galapagos Islands. No other theory can explain why a cricket occupies the ecological niche that mice occupy in the rest of the world. No other theory could explain the designs — good and not so good — in plants and animals. Bottom line: “perfection” is a value judgment. Scientists admire theories that conform to the data. That is, theories that are supported, not refuted, by the data. The more data that supports them, the more scientists admire them. Evolution is supported by massive amounts of data. They also admire theories that are “clever”. The theories that cause you to clap your hand to your forehead and say “Why didn’t I think of that?” Natural selection is such a theory. Scientists also admire theories that give them tools to answer new questions and understand new observations. Again, evolution has done that. Natural selection explains antibiotic resistance and the resistance of cancers to treatments, providing biomedical researchers with insights on new research into those problems.. It explains the fossil record and provides tools to paleontologists on where and when to look for fossils. Natural selection has provided scientists in many fields — computer programming, biochemistry, engineering, airplane design, computer design, etc. — new tools such as genetic algorithms to get designs that they could not get on their own. And the list goes on and on.

It's right and relevant. Darwin's thoughts on the evolution of life were scientifically formulated with evidence documented to support it. His thoughts on creation were just that...thoughts, no evidence to support such unscientific mythical dogma. It's not true and irrelevant. Yes, agreed...a wild arsed guess. Our knowledge of the atom has progressed with technological advancements, observations and experiments, and as a result as per science and the scientific method, our model has changed. The basic foundation that atoms were indivisible was wrong...As observations improved...the model changed...science and the scientific method progressed and prevailed. Again most of your irrelevant stories and analogies were ignored, and obviously your take on "perfection" and evolution has been shown to be wrong....many times. Sorry about that. The following Q+A site was recommended to me by a professional Astronomer as reputable with professional answers..... https://www.quora.com/To-what-extent-is-scientists-admiration-of-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-dependent-upon-its-perfection <Q> To what extent is scientists' admiration of Darwin's theory of evolution, dependent upon its perfection? <A> To zero extent. There is no such thing as perfection in science.There were many things Darwin had no knowledge of when he proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection.He did not know the mechanism of inheritance. He knew inheritance happened, humans have known about that for millennia, but he did not know how.The structure of DNA wasn’t discovered until 71 years after Darwin’s death. We still don’t fully understand how it works.Charles Darwin has been dead for 134 years. Science continues to advance. We understand evolution so much more clearly now than he did. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2nd Answer> None, which is a good thing, because “perfect” is not really what we think of when thinking of Darwin’s insights. Like almost everything in science, the explanations Darwin came up with (for things he noticed in the world) were pretty good, at the time. A lot of his ideas (and they weren’t just his, by the way, but he gets the credit largely because other than Wallace, nobody else seems to have been putting the pieces together and writing it down) were very solid, and they’ve held up very well over the past century-plus. Of course, there was a lot that he didn’t know about - DNA/genetics, for instance - and a huge amount of pretty deep research has been done on the ideas he proposed since then. Impressively, almost everything he laid out has been basically confirmed, with the caveats that the picture is a bit more complicated than he realized. He got a lot of how evolution works pretty much right, which is a tribute to his ability to pull a lot of different strands of information together and pick up the underlying pattern. However, a lot of times the first stab at things is pretty crude, which makes Darwin’s synthesis pretty impressive. Of course, that was then, and scientists often had a lot more time to mull things over and chew on ideas until the big Aha! moment. Nowadays the race for publication primacy is very intense. Darwin only really had to worry about Wallace (or vice versa, unfortunately for Wallace), just like Leibnitz and Newton were the two independently working on the Calculus. Today, with the instantaneous and far-flung web of scientific communication, discoveries are far more likely to work out the way Tom Lehrer describes in his classic song “Lobachevsky”

Whether Musk, or Lansdorp or NASA or anyone else is dreaming or not, we will put a man on Mars....colonies, I'm not sure when, but again, given the time... And no I'm not dreaming, political climate and economical conditions do and will change. Your concerns are real, at least some of them, but you are completely forgetting the human need to do what, and go where we have not gone before. Even if science is able to halt any potential devastating effects of climate change and change general attitudes in looking after this planet, we still will undertake all those difficult things that will quench our search for adventure, improve and add to our science, and knowledge, and spread our seed beyond Earth.

I'm saying that its attitudes of curiosity, a sense of going where no one has gone before, and the sense of adventure that is responsible in large part for where we are today. I've addressed your argument re political and economical concerns as temporary and changing. Your other points appear just your opinion. At this time, yes......but I have not put any time frame on when we should put a man on Mars, or establish a colony.....Let me ask you a question.....Will we have landed a man on Mars by the year 2118? Let me ask you another....Where do you believe we'll be in the year 3000?

The other apparent aspect of Reg's posts/claims/interpretations are his attempts to redefine words or ideas/quotes etc, to suit your own purpose.

With all due respect, it was far more than that. His whole mission has been punctuated with errors. eg: That Newtonian did not predict the existence of Neptune was a prime example, despite numerous links. And yes obviously of course his claim about scientific dogmatism was another. His damnation of the scientific method, and even the concrete nature of the theory of the evolution of life were others without delving back into those threads, and as I have pointed out, have all been continually claimed and rehearsed, since 2015. Certainly as I said earlier. philosophy has its place, and certainly I am able to understand the attractiveness of one philosopher [yourself] arguing/debating another, but gee whiz, the way he has used his so called philosophy to invalidate or cast doubt on scientific certainties or near certainties, has in my opinion sunk to crazy levels. And now we have this dogmatic view on perfection and its application in nature. But just perhaps, that is his goal...ie to create controversy and thereby practise his brand of philosophy on all us poor unexpected science supporters, both professional and in my case amateur.

Love the incredible photography particularly at near the beginning....the music I refuse to comment on,