johnlear
04-13-2008, 04:22 PM
Disinformation artists and sock puppets use a couple of words that identifies them.
One of these words is 'counter-intuitive'.
A counter-intuitive proposition is one which does not seem likely to be true when assessed using intuition or gut feelings.
NASA's chief disinformation artist, Jim Oberg responded to the Bullialdus-Newton Law of Inverse Square application to the gravity of the moon which results in 64% that of Earths with this:
"The 'sphere of influence' concept was computationally most practical. That's the second approach. And in real terms, it's the only 'authentic' definition, as you can show by calculating the Earth-SUN 'neutral point' both ways, and see that the 'classic' (i.e., pre-Space-Age) method gives a neutral point CLOSER to Earth than the moon's orbit -- counter-intuitive and contrary to several billion years of loyal lunar earth-orbiting." (Jim Oberg)
This is classic obfuscation using the term "pre-space-age" methods, describing them as 'classic' and then proposing that they are "counter-inutitive' (likely to be true when assessed using intuition or gut-feeling?)
And "contrary to several billion years of loyal lunar earth-orbiting". Which is not "pre-space-age?"
At this, Oberg was the master. Lately he seems to be losing ground both in ability and to other disinformation artists and professional sock puppets.
Another disinformation-sock puppet method is to make a pseudo-scientific statement and then pronounce the result as if the pseudo-scientific statement is the final proof.
For instance, on one forum there was a thread about the many miles of a perfectly straight cut iceberg.
One sock puppet posted this comment:
"When massive ice sheets break up the straight-line appearance is called cleavage, which is a breaking point along natural weak spots, same principal used in cutting diamonds. It's nature's handiwork, not DEWs."
Here the sock puppet compares several miles of a perfectly cut iceberg with diamond faceting and fatuously calls it 'nature's handiwork'. Yanked up short with the facts she responds:
"A Direct Energy Weapon is what I see in my bedroom a few nights a week. Oh wait, no, it isn't actually a weapon but it sure is fun!" as she now tries to shift the conversation to a discussion on sex, as we are all supposed to go "woo woo" and and "ha ha" and forget about the Direct Energy Weapons.
The benchmark of fatuous disinformation however belongs to Paulo and Alexandra Correa, (MSc, PhD and HBA, respectively) in their platitudinous, ponderous and disinformational attack "Pari Spolter's Dysfunctional Physics".
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_ ... ate.php#s1 (http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/spolter_debate.php#s1)
Pari Spolter in her book "Gravitational Force of the Sun" (Copyright 1993 Pari Spolter, Orb Publishing) exposes and lays to waste Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and Einsteins theories of Relativity, both general and special.
Spolter then goes on with clear and scientifically provable and supported fact that gravity is independent of the mass or nature of the attracted body, that mass and energy are not one and the same and that gravity is the result of acceleration (a) times the area (of a circle with a radius equal to the mean distance of the orbiting body from the central body) or F=a.A. This equation implies that the acceleration due to gravity declines by the square of the distance, but that the gravitational force of the Sun, Earth, etc. is constant for any body revolving around it.
I doubt if more than 6 people on the planet Earth have waded through this scientific void of fatuous (this word comes up a lot describing disinformation artists and sock puppets), and pompous oratory on the Ashtar's Command Theory of Gravity which the Correa's call Aetherometry, which is should actually be titled "The Science of Nothing" by Paulo and Alexandra Correa.
Specifically, the Correa's charge that Spolter confuses her 'circular force' with massfree energy. Ah yes, massfree energy, that’s what the rest of us call, in polite company, a 'petard'.
The Correas point out that this value can also be arrived at by multiplying the length-equivalent mass of the Sun by the accepted value of G times π. But this value has the aetherometric dimensions of energy – not force. Ah yes. Aetherometric dimensions. That’s the theory of something from nothing which has no dimensions. Like zeropoint energy. It must be there: because we think it is.
But the all time, Millenium, Jim Oberg Prize for Psuedo-Scientific Fatuous Nonsense goes to Paulo and Alexandra Correa for this gem:
"In this, Newton did miss what is now obvious to Aetherometry, if the total mass of the system is considered (not the mass of the Sun alone): that gravitation, primarily, is the result of the interaction of the property of translatory inertia with a cosmic force constant G, and this interaction is equivalent to a massfree energy term which, indeed, is independent of mass but proportional to it. It is only secondary gravitation – where the mutual interactions of members of a system are taken into account – that appears to be reducible to the phenomenological language of 'a mutual attraction between masses' (from which the concepts of gravitational potential and relative gravitational work have come)."
This paragraph is Jim Oberg on steroids.
One of these words is 'counter-intuitive'.
A counter-intuitive proposition is one which does not seem likely to be true when assessed using intuition or gut feelings.
NASA's chief disinformation artist, Jim Oberg responded to the Bullialdus-Newton Law of Inverse Square application to the gravity of the moon which results in 64% that of Earths with this:
"The 'sphere of influence' concept was computationally most practical. That's the second approach. And in real terms, it's the only 'authentic' definition, as you can show by calculating the Earth-SUN 'neutral point' both ways, and see that the 'classic' (i.e., pre-Space-Age) method gives a neutral point CLOSER to Earth than the moon's orbit -- counter-intuitive and contrary to several billion years of loyal lunar earth-orbiting." (Jim Oberg)
This is classic obfuscation using the term "pre-space-age" methods, describing them as 'classic' and then proposing that they are "counter-inutitive' (likely to be true when assessed using intuition or gut-feeling?)
And "contrary to several billion years of loyal lunar earth-orbiting". Which is not "pre-space-age?"
At this, Oberg was the master. Lately he seems to be losing ground both in ability and to other disinformation artists and professional sock puppets.
Another disinformation-sock puppet method is to make a pseudo-scientific statement and then pronounce the result as if the pseudo-scientific statement is the final proof.
For instance, on one forum there was a thread about the many miles of a perfectly straight cut iceberg.
One sock puppet posted this comment:
"When massive ice sheets break up the straight-line appearance is called cleavage, which is a breaking point along natural weak spots, same principal used in cutting diamonds. It's nature's handiwork, not DEWs."
Here the sock puppet compares several miles of a perfectly cut iceberg with diamond faceting and fatuously calls it 'nature's handiwork'. Yanked up short with the facts she responds:
"A Direct Energy Weapon is what I see in my bedroom a few nights a week. Oh wait, no, it isn't actually a weapon but it sure is fun!" as she now tries to shift the conversation to a discussion on sex, as we are all supposed to go "woo woo" and and "ha ha" and forget about the Direct Energy Weapons.
The benchmark of fatuous disinformation however belongs to Paulo and Alexandra Correa, (MSc, PhD and HBA, respectively) in their platitudinous, ponderous and disinformational attack "Pari Spolter's Dysfunctional Physics".
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_ ... ate.php#s1 (http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/spolter_debate.php#s1)
Pari Spolter in her book "Gravitational Force of the Sun" (Copyright 1993 Pari Spolter, Orb Publishing) exposes and lays to waste Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and Einsteins theories of Relativity, both general and special.
Spolter then goes on with clear and scientifically provable and supported fact that gravity is independent of the mass or nature of the attracted body, that mass and energy are not one and the same and that gravity is the result of acceleration (a) times the area (of a circle with a radius equal to the mean distance of the orbiting body from the central body) or F=a.A. This equation implies that the acceleration due to gravity declines by the square of the distance, but that the gravitational force of the Sun, Earth, etc. is constant for any body revolving around it.
I doubt if more than 6 people on the planet Earth have waded through this scientific void of fatuous (this word comes up a lot describing disinformation artists and sock puppets), and pompous oratory on the Ashtar's Command Theory of Gravity which the Correa's call Aetherometry, which is should actually be titled "The Science of Nothing" by Paulo and Alexandra Correa.
Specifically, the Correa's charge that Spolter confuses her 'circular force' with massfree energy. Ah yes, massfree energy, that’s what the rest of us call, in polite company, a 'petard'.
The Correas point out that this value can also be arrived at by multiplying the length-equivalent mass of the Sun by the accepted value of G times π. But this value has the aetherometric dimensions of energy – not force. Ah yes. Aetherometric dimensions. That’s the theory of something from nothing which has no dimensions. Like zeropoint energy. It must be there: because we think it is.
But the all time, Millenium, Jim Oberg Prize for Psuedo-Scientific Fatuous Nonsense goes to Paulo and Alexandra Correa for this gem:
"In this, Newton did miss what is now obvious to Aetherometry, if the total mass of the system is considered (not the mass of the Sun alone): that gravitation, primarily, is the result of the interaction of the property of translatory inertia with a cosmic force constant G, and this interaction is equivalent to a massfree energy term which, indeed, is independent of mass but proportional to it. It is only secondary gravitation – where the mutual interactions of members of a system are taken into account – that appears to be reducible to the phenomenological language of 'a mutual attraction between masses' (from which the concepts of gravitational potential and relative gravitational work have come)."
This paragraph is Jim Oberg on steroids.