Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #404771 > unrolled thread

The Moon

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-09 11:51 -0800
    Re: The Moon pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 13:08 -0800
      Re: The Moon Nicholle Fiorillo <holhirlo@hololell.ho> - 2017-01-09 22:45 +0000
        Re: The Moon pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 15:02 -0800
          Re: The Moon Jaqueline Yoho <eau@oeJqq.org> - 2017-01-10 00:03 +0000
            Re: The Moon pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 20:04 -0800
              Re: The Moon Jaqueline Yoho <eau@oeJqq.org> - 2017-01-10 22:08 +0000
                Re: The Moon pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-01-10 15:44 -0800
        Re: The Moon pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 15:03 -0800
    Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-09 21:28 -0800
    Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-09 21:46 -0800
      Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-09 21:49 -0800
        Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-10 09:08 -0800
        Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-10 23:05 -0800
          Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-10 23:16 -0800
            Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-11 14:21 -0800
          Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-12 22:36 -0800
            Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-13 11:01 -0800
              Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-13 22:44 -0800
                Re: The Moon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-16 10:12 -0800
    Re: The Moon John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-10 15:49 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#404771 — The Moon

https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/




It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.




to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.


they should be shot. caused they are stupid.






moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/




What does "new-theory" mean???? A new kook?


Yous people should not be allowed to come up with..."new-theory", cause they are gettin stupidier by the moment!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#404790

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 11:51:43 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> 
> 
> they should be shot. caused they are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does "new-theory" mean???? A new kook?
> 
> 
> Yous people should not be allowed to come up with..."new-theory", cause they are gettin stupidier by the moment!

Read the entire page...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

"Synonym Discussion of theory - 

HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>."

Clearly, these articles were written by non-scientists who do not really know the difference a between HYPOTHESIS and a THEORY, and probably should have used the word 'hypothesis' instead of the word 'theory'... but most of us know just what they meant.

Science can't actually prove any theory to be correct, it can only prove them to be wrong. Science is based essentially on experiments and observations, and these can be imperfect in the real world. These imperfections can persist for decades or centuries before the observations and/or experiments prove them to be wrong, like, for example, the aether/ether theory, the canals of mars, the planet Vulcan, or the expanding Earth, all former hypothesis'/theories that have proven to be false.

When you claim the folks who have proposed this new hypothesis should be shot because they are stupid, well, I suspect they could make the exact same claim about you, because, after all, your claim is just another hypothesis!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#404822

pnalsing wrote:

>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-
little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/

I don't believe for a second in that moon landing. There are simply no 
proofs. Watching those pictures says exactly the opposite.

And I don't buy that argument saying that today is more expensive landing 
overthere. Can't possibly be. Much cheaper and affordable, YES, but more 
costly, absolutely NOT. So much for your moon landing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#404824

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:45:10 PM UTC-8, Nicholle Fiorillo wrote:
> pnalsing wrote:
> 
> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-
> little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> 
> I don't believe for a second in that moon landing. There are simply no 
> proofs. Watching those pictures says exactly the opposite.
> 
> And I don't buy that argument saying that today is more expensive landing 
> overthere. Can't possibly be. Much cheaper and affordable, YES, but more 
> costly, absolutely NOT. So much for your moon landing.

Errr.. who said anything about a moon landing? Are you incapable of reading?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#404835

pnalsing wrote:

>> And I don't buy that argument saying that today is more expensive
>> landing overthere. Can't possibly be. Much cheaper and affordable, YES,
>> but more costly, absolutely NOT. So much for your moon landing.
> 
> Errr.. who said anything about a moon landing? Are you incapable of
> reading?

NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#404864

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 4:03:55 PM UTC-8, Jaqueline Yoho wrote:
> pnalsing wrote:
> 
> >> And I don't buy that argument saying that today is more expensive
> >> landing overthere. Can't possibly be. Much cheaper and affordable, YES,
> >> but more costly, absolutely NOT. So much for your moon landing.
> > 
> > Errr.. who said anything about a moon landing? Are you incapable of
> > reading?
> 
> NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE

Here, learn something...

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405007

pnalsing wrote:

>> NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE
> 
> Here, learn something...
> 
> http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through

Nonsense, probably you and your friends should read this detailed recent 
paper. I don't want to hear anything more about that moon landing.

NASA ADMITS: WE CAN'T LEAVE EARTH'S LOWER ORBIT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmEojSPDVG0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405030

On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 2:09:02 PM UTC-8, Jaqueline Yoho wrote:
> pnalsing wrote:
> 
> >> NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE
> > 
> > Here, learn something...
> > 
> > http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through
> 
> Nonsense, probably you and your friends should read this detailed recent 
> paper. I don't want to hear anything more about that moon landing.
> 
> NASA ADMITS: WE CAN'T LEAVE EARTH'S LOWER ORBIT
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmEojSPDVG0

You obviously don't have very good comprehension skills. That video *clearly* implies that we humans can't leave lower Earth orbit TODAY because we don't have the proper vehicle to do so anymore. It does NOT say that we didn't go to the moon in the past, nor that we won't in he future.

I think you are one of many kooks and cranks that post here under many, many different names... I recognize your writing style...

BTW, this post had *nothing* to do with moon landings, and if you don't want to hear any more about it, quit bringing it up...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#404825

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:45:10 PM UTC-8, Nicholle Fiorillo wrote:
> pnalsing wrote:
> 
> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-
> little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/

Well, no, I didn't. Someone entirely different posted tha link...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#404879

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> 
> It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.



What I meant by "It could only mean one thing....a trip to the
moon."....with Trump in, Mars is out!

That means 'they' will start talking Moon cause it's the only money they
are going to get is a ..ticket to the Moon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#404882

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> 
> It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> 
> to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
>


I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
throw them away anyway by next week.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#404883

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> >
> > It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> >
> > to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> >
> 
> I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
> throw them away anyway by next week.


probably it's because no matter what theories yous come up with, there is always something ...missing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#404957

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> > > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> > >
> > > It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> > >
> > > to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
> > throw them away anyway by next week.
> 
> probably it's because no matter what theories yous come up with, there is always something ...missing.


What's missing? Truth??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405060

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> > > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> > >
> > > It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> > >
> > > to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
> > throw them away anyway by next week.
> 
> probably it's because no matter what theories yous come up with, there is always something ...missing.


every single theory is missing 


something

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405066

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> > > >
> > > > It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> > > >
> > > > to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
> > > throw them away anyway by next week.
> >
> > probably it's because no matter what theories yous come up with, there is always something ...missing.
> 
> every single theory is missing
> 
> something


and a hundred years go by and
somebody comes along
and fixes the theory..

and something is still missing.


Einstein died trying to find
the theory of everything..

what he didn't realize was that

not that something was missing...but

that something 

will
always 
be
missing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405180

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> > > > >
> > > > > It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> > > > >
> > > > > to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
> > > > throw them away anyway by next week.
> > >
> > > probably it's because no matter what theories yous come up with, there is always something ...missing.
> >
> > every single theory is missing
> >
> > something
> 
> and a hundred years go by and
> somebody comes along
> and fixes the theory..
> 
> and something is still missing.
> 
> Einstein died trying to find
> the theory of everything..
> 
> what he didn't realize was that
> 
> not that something was missing...but
> 
> that something
> 
> will
> always
> be
> missing.

A 'theory of everything' will have to include whatever is missing.

But if you don't know what is missing...how do you include it? Since, there will always be something....missing.


The Scientific Method is...missing something, isn't it????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405408

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> > > >
> > > > It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> > > >
> > > > to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
> > > throw them away anyway by next week.
> >
> > probably it's because no matter what theories yous come up with, there is always something ...missing.
> 
> every single theory is missing
> 
> something


take for example..

Einstein's theory of relativity


from it comes the big bang theory..

but then the question is asked

'what caused the big bang?'

that part is ...missing.




Or Darwin's theory of evolution..


the question is asked, 'what is the origin of life?'

that's *missing* from his theory..

He even try to hide the missing part by saying:


 "it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life;.."


So, every theory is missing something...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405458

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> > > > >
> > > > > It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> > > > >
> > > > > to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
> > > > throw them away anyway by next week.
> > >
> > > probably it's because no matter what theories yous come up with, there is always something ...missing.
> >
> > every single theory is missing
> >
> > something
> 
> take for example..
> 
> Einstein's theory of relativity
> 
> from it comes the big bang theory..
> 
> but then the question is asked
> 
> 'what caused the big bang?'
> 
> that part is ...missing.
> 
> Or Darwin's theory of evolution..
> 
> the question is asked, 'what is the origin of life?'
> 
> that's *missing* from his theory..
> 
> He even try to hide the missing part by saying:
> 
>  "it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life;.."
> 
> So, every theory is missing something...




Charles Darwin spent many years putting together his theory and book The Origin of the Species, but

he left out the most important part...the origin of the species!


I think he said 'it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of species'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405540

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> > > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> > > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
> > > > > throw them away anyway by next week.
> > > >
> > > > probably it's because no matter what theories yous come up with, there is always something ...missing.
> > >
> > > every single theory is missing
> > >
> > > something
> >
> > take for example..
> >
> > Einstein's theory of relativity
> >
> > from it comes the big bang theory..
> >
> > but then the question is asked
> >
> > 'what caused the big bang?'
> >
> > that part is ...missing.
> >
> > Or Darwin's theory of evolution..
> >
> > the question is asked, 'what is the origin of life?'
> >
> > that's *missing* from his theory..
> >
> > He even try to hide the missing part by saying:
> >
> >  "it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life;.."
> >
> > So, every theory is missing something...
> 
> Charles Darwin spent many years putting together his theory and book The Origin of the Species, but
> 
> he left out the most important part...the origin of the species!
> 
> I think he said 'it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of species'.




Now, Albert Einstein died tryin to find a unified theory...

matbe something was...missing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#405814

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=Researchers+Suggest+New+Theory+for+the+Moon%E2%80%99s+Origin
> > > > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/moon-formation-theories/504449/
> > > > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/09/moon-formed-merger-20-little-moonlets-new-theory-suggests/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It could only mean one thing....a trip to the moon.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to stop their ridiculous bickering and stupid theories.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know why yous even bother with these 'new theroies' about the moon, ...you're going to
> > > > > > throw them away anyway by next week.
> > > > >
> > > > > probably it's because no matter what theories yous come up with, there is always something ...missing.
> > > >
> > > > every single theory is missing
> > > >
> > > > something
> > >
> > > take for example..
> > >
> > > Einstein's theory of relativity
> > >
> > > from it comes the big bang theory..
> > >
> > > but then the question is asked
> > >
> > > 'what caused the big bang?'
> > >
> > > that part is ...missing.
> > >
> > > Or Darwin's theory of evolution..
> > >
> > > the question is asked, 'what is the origin of life?'
> > >
> > > that's *missing* from his theory..
> > >
> > > He even try to hide the missing part by saying:
> > >
> > >  "it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life;.."
> > >
> > > So, every theory is missing something...
> >
> > Charles Darwin spent many years putting together his theory and book The Origin of the Species, but
> >
> > he left out the most important part...the origin of the species!
> >
> > I think he said 'it is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of species'.
> 
> Now, Albert Einstein died tryin to find a unified theory...
> 
> maybe something was...missing.


but it will take about 500 years before anybody finds out what was
missing, then...something else turns up missing.


In other words, these "theories" are turtles all the way down.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web