ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (09/09/86)
Wayne Throop, from the "Known World" writes: >> No. Greenhouses don't melt lead. The surface heat of Venus would. The >> super-greenhouse theory is Sagan at his worst. >"Greenhouses don't melt lead." *This* is *Ted* at his worst. A vague >assertion, meaning unclear, backed up by bogus arguments that don't >consider the relevant factors and aren't based on any meaningful >calculations, and finally used to justify an unrelated position later. >Aside to Ted: > Surely you don't mean "no solar collector based on the 'greenhouse > effect' can have a thermal equilibrium temperature greater than the > melting point of lead." I don't find this implausible at all. If > this is what you mean, perhaps you could say *why* you find this > implausible. Solar collectors, as I understand them, involve FOCUSING large amounts of energy on a small area either through lenses or parabolic reflectors. Since the atmosphere of Venus is concave DOWN (towards the surface of the planet), this would only work for light coming from the ground. Sorry, throop, I'm more of a big-game hunter than that. I mean, I'll stick to debunking SAGAN; you can give your thermal collector theory to the local second grade class to debunk. The books BY Sagan and his ilk speak of a "super-greenhouse-theory"; they don't speak of any solar collector theories. Ever wonder what Wayne Throop does when he's not "debunking" me and my theories or my "debating tactics"? The following is from net.physics: >But all this leads to an interesting (I think so anyhow) puzzle. Let us >assume we are on a spaceship which is in the process of circumnavigating >the galaxy in 50 years subjective time, as outlined above. How much >"centrifugal acceleration" do the inhabitants of the ship experience >(relative to the center of the galaxy, of course)? (Or, equivalently, >how much centripetal acceleration must the ship's engines supply?) You can always tell the types who are keen on reality....... I mean, it SHOWS. A CAR with an engine capable of centripetal acceleration wouldn't need steering gear, and if Throop ever DOES get his spaceship to rolling that hard, he'd best HOPE it's rolling in a straight line. I write articles to net.origins on occasion for the benefit of a small handfull of people out there who can and have learned something from them; that obviously doesn't include Throop or three or four of my loudest detractors. I'm not even INTERESTED in debating you, Throop. It's kind of like the old story about the fat lady walking into a bar with a duck under her arm. The barkeep says "that's a mighty fine looking pig you got there", the lady replies "that's not a pig, that's a duck, you dummy", and the barkeep says "I was TALKING TO the duck".
pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) (09/10/86)
In reading Ted H, I have been curious as to why he seems to have it in so much for Carl Sagen. When Sagen deals with Velikovski in his books and articles, he makes a point, generally, of taking him seriously, even chastising his fellow astronomers for not doing so. In fact, Sagen organized a discussion at a meeting of the AAAS some years back on Velikoviski, inviting him (Velikovski) to participate. Why then does Ted dislike Carl? I think the answer lies in the fact that Sagen did take him seriously and in doing so did not martyr him. This robs Velikovski of his greatest appeal, his image of the man "ahead of his time." I admire Velikovski for his literary scholarship, his mastery of ancient languages. As a scientist, I still think he is all wet.
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Ma-Ma-Ma-Max Ma-Ma-Max Headroom) (09/10/86)
Ted Holden writes: >> Surely you don't mean "no solar collector based on the 'greenhouse >> effect' can have a thermal equilibrium temperature greater than the >> melting point of lead." I don't find this implausible at all. If > Solar collectors, as I understand them, involve FOCUSING large amounts > of energy on a small area either through lenses or parabolic reflectors. Gee, Ted, has it occurred to you that maybe you DON'T understand them? > You can always tell the types who are keen on reality....... I mean, it > SHOWS. Wow! How more effectively can Ted indict himself? Good job, Ted! > I write articles to net.origins on occasion for the benefit of a small > handfull of people out there who can and have learned something from > them; that obviously doesn't include Throop or three or four of my > loudest detractors. Au contraire! I'm sure everyone here has learned plenty about the incredible amounts of ignorance, obstinance, and evasiveness that a person can embody. *I* sure have. Keep it up, Ted, so we can laugh some more. > I'm not even INTERESTED in debating you, Throop. Naturally. Ted only responds (if at all) when he can find a nit to pick. He can't debate his theory or the facts, because the former makes absolutely no sense, and the latter he can't understand (which doesn't stop him from posting selected, unsubstantiated data for "support"). > old story about the fat lady walking into a bar with a duck under her > arm. The barkeep says "that's a mighty fine looking pig you got there", > the lady replies "that's not a pig, that's a duck, you dummy", and the > barkeep says "I was TALKING TO the duck". That's right. Ted is talking to the ducks. *Them* he might convince. Pay attention to my signature line, Ted. *YOU* might learn something. ========================================= "The tyranny of what seems reasonable often impedes science." Scott J. Berry ihnp4!hou2g!scott
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (09/10/86)
In article <615@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: (Lots of quoted stuff about greenhouses as solar collectors and melting lead) >Solar collectors, as I understand them, involve FOCUSING large amounts >of energy on a small area either through lenses or parabolic reflectors. >Since the atmosphere of Venus is concave DOWN (towards the surface of >the planet), this would only work for light coming from the ground. >Sorry, throop, I'm more of a big-game hunter than that. I mean, I'll >stick to debunking SAGAN; you can give your thermal collector theory to the >local second grade class to debunk. > (Quote from net.physics followed by very silly car/spaceship analogy) >I write articles to net.origins on occasion for the benefit of a small >handfull of people out there who can and have learned something from >them; that obviously doesn't include Throop or three or four of my >loudest detractors. > >I'm not even INTERESTED in debating you, Throop. I'm not even interested in READING you, ted@imsvax. I think that you nearly singlehandedly responsible for the reclassification of origins as "talk". You've certainly reduced my interest in reading this group. A glance at the net statistics will show that YOU produce most of the verbiage in this group, and that the group is only read by 3% of the net readers. I suspect that many of THOSE, like myself, have the following line in their net.origins KILL file: /ted@imsvax/h:j And are soon to put it in their talk.origins KILL file. Michael Lonetto UUCP:(allegra!phri!lonetto) USMAIL: Public Health Research Institute, 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (09/11/86)
> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) >> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) > Wayne Throop, from the "Known World" writes: As usual, you got it wrong. *YOU* are from the known world (or rather, the "other side" of it). *I*'m from dg_rtp. (And that's "Throop", not "Thoop".) > Solar collectors, as I understand them, involve FOCUSING large amounts > of energy on a small area either through lenses or parabolic reflectors. As usual, you understand wrong. A common example of a solar collector that does not involve FOCUSING, lenses, or reflectors is the panels often used to heat water. (In fact, these are based on the greenhouse effect, and can easily reach 180 degrees or so. This is hardly a limit, of course... simply a design constraint.) Of course, this renders your rather ill-thought-out notions of the potential focusing effects of Venus' atmosphere irrelevant. > The books BY Sagan and his ilk speak of a "super-greenhouse-theory"; > they don't speak of any solar collector theories. Somewhat silly point, Ted, since a greenhouse *IS* a solar collector. > Sorry, throop, I'm more of a big-game hunter than that. I mean, I'll > stick to debunking SAGAN; Ha! You really ought to be more careful Ted... stalking around half-armed in a duel of wits is a little dangerous... I mean really... Ted has demonstrated over and over that he is barely up to a high-school level of understanding in the sciences. And yet he is going to "debunk" Sagan. Right. Good luck, I'm sure. > Ever wonder what > Wayne Throop does when he's not "debunking" me and my theories or my > "debating tactics"? The following is from net.physics: >> [puzzle: deduce the subjective acceleration in a spaceship >> circumnavigating the galaxy in 50 years subjective time.] > You can always tell the types who are keen on reality....... I mean, it > SHOWS. A CAR with an engine capable of centripetal acceleration > wouldn't need steering gear, and if Throop ever DOES get his spaceship > to rolling that hard, he'd best HOPE it's rolling in a straight line. It's a little unclear what Ted might mean by this... apparently he finds the puzzle funny, or impossible, or something. There is a slight implication that I've used the terms "centripetal" and/or "engine" incorrectly. If Ted meant the implication, it just demonstrates that he doesn't know what the terms mean in this context. As usual. ANYhow, I'm sure than anybody with more intelligence than a tree-frog can *tell* from the above what I do (on the net, anyway) when I'm not pointing out the numerous flaws in Ted's so-called "reasoning". I'm having fun the old-fashioned way... I'm *thinking*. Come to think of it, it's fun to point out Ted's blunders, too. (Hmpf. So there.) > I write articles to net.origins on occasion for the benefit of a small > handfull of people out there who can and have learned something from > them; Polls have (allegedly) found the size of this audience to be zero. > I'm not even INTERESTED in debating you, Throop. Then why do you seem to attempt it so often, I wonder? Attempt and fail horribly. In fact, Ted may have just set a new record for "number of subjects Ted has demonstrated ignorance of in a single posting". I mean, we've got network pathnames, solar collectors, engines, and the notion of "centripetal acceleration". Nah... I think I remember one where he had at least six such... nice try, though, Ted. > [... nice] pig you got there [...] "I was TALKING TO the duck". Quack, quack, I'm sure. (Or maybe oink, oink?) -- "I don't ask questions.... I just have FUN!" --- Bugs Bunny -- "A straight line may be the shortest route between two points, but it is by no means the most interesting!" --- The Doctor -- Theeeere y' go man! Keep as cooooool as y' can! Give miles and miles of smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave. --- Moody Blues -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) (09/12/86)
[With the thoughts I'd be thinkin', I could be another Lincoln... if I only had a brain.] In article <2434@phri.UUCP> lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) writes: >In article <615@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: >>I write articles to net.origins on occasion for the benefit of a small >>handfull of people out there who can and have learned something from >>them; that obviously doesn't include Throop or three or four of my >>loudest detractors. >> >>I'm not even INTERESTED in debating you, Throop. > >I'm not even interested in READING you, ted@imsvax. Well, personally, I find Ted *far* more interesting than most of the other folks in *.origins. In fact, he's a big reason I still subscribe. All the rest of you folks are doing busy-work worrying about mere facts and verifiability, while Ted gives us these absolutely delightful accounts of...well, all sorts of stuff. Yeah, I think he's totally wrong. But then so was Tolkein. Doesn't mean he's not a lot of fun to read. >I suspect that many of THOSE, like myself, >have the following line in their net.origins KILL file: >/ted@imsvax/h:j >And are soon to put it in their talk.origins KILL file. A. Speak for yourself, thanx. B. So how'd you happen to catch Ted's article so's you could speak for the rest of us? -- --JB ((Just) Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) All we learn from history is that we don't learn anything from history.