| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bob Hawke
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:56 pm Post subject: Re: The Aussie taxpayers will always provide wealthy parasit |
 |
|
"Sunny" <wombatlodge@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:oG%9k.15978$IK1.6123@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[quote]
jpturcaud@neuf.fr> wrote in message
news:c635857b-5f68-4d91-9d8c-7c365284441a@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On 30 juin, 04:53, Benway <captai...@mailpuppy.com> wrote:
*
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/06/28/1214472834902.html?feed=fai...
*
Lady (Mary) Downer, mother of Howard government
foreign minister Alexander Downer jnr, notched up
$3781.37 between July and December last year
on taxpayer-funded travel.
... for what reason is the old bitch getting that funding ?
Lady Downer>s entitlement to free trips arises from her late husband>s
status as a Commonwealth life gold pass holder.
Is she useful to the community ?
She is not an embarrasment, like you are to France.
Has she done anything worth related for it ?
None of your business.
...has she taken position in support of valid causes ?
Like what?
[/quote]
Le-Turd - FRANCE>S GREATEST WANKER !! |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
V for Vendicar
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: Re: ...First Microscopic Images....It>s gotta be Water-Ice! |
|
|
"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote
[quote]Why no mass spectrometer readings?
[/quote]
Give them time.
Water ice frost has been photographed on the surface of mars by various mars
landers. So the finding of water ice frost is nothing new. It does support
the idea that there is a large quantity of water ice below the surface
however - which is what the radar indicated. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Eric Chomko
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:31 pm Post subject: Re: ...Giant Impact might explain Mars Oceans and Tharsis U |
|
|
On Jun 26, 8:29 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote:
[quote]Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature |
Asteroid smash turned Mars into 'takeaway pizza' planet
Not long after the planet was born, it was altered forever
by a meteoric blast, as this computer-simulated video shows.http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080625/full/news.2008.916.html
Long interview with researchers and more detailed impact
simulation footage.http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/megaimpactonmars/
"Water throughout the history of Mars would>ve flowed north".
s
[/quote]
An impact? Where is the evidence of the crater, or where are the
striation marks? How come Jupiter and its influence on Mars doesn>t
explain it better? Surely the Asteriod Belt is a result of a planet
not being able to form due to its proximity to Jupiter (see Asmimov>s
book on Jupiter for that one). Why wouldn>t a formed Mars farther away
have things like a huge canyon and an uplifted group of volcanoes
nearby just because of Jupiter as well?
Someone saw striations on Jovian satellites and went nuts with the
theory elsewhere, like our moon and now Mars.
Eric |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
don findlay
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:26 pm Post subject: Re: ...Giant Impact might explain Mars Oceans and Tharsis U |
|
|
kT wrote:
[quote]OM wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:13:57 -0700 (PDT), sir.jpturcaud@neuf.fr wrote:
By the way Mars never got a big impact and its axis normal to
ecliptics indicates it ...and this is not the case of the Earth ...
Did ever one of those famous researcherzz come to such concluzionzz ?
Wondering !
...Jean-Paul - and all you guys on s.geo.geology - "jonathan" is a
well known poster on the science hierarchies, where everybody is on a
first name basis here except for you assholes, Mosley. Even George and
Jonathan talk nice about Mars nowadays, and Stu already has a unit of
catastrophe named after him.
[/quote]
Yeah, ..here:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/rubber.html
[quote]Everybody is always welcome here, so ...
f ck off.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:58 am Post subject: Re: ...Giant Impact might explain Mars Oceans and Tharsis U |
|
|
"Alan Erskine" <alan.erskine@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:bSk9k.15517$IK1.13282@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[quote]"OM" <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote in message
news:ha5b64h1nts4uudoc6bdrf6v356jd784tj@4ax.com...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:13:57 -0700 (PDT), sir.jpturcaud@neuf.fr wrote:
By the way Mars never got a big impact and its axis normal to
ecliptics indicates it ...and this is not the case of the Earth ...
Did ever one of those famous researcherzz come to such concluzionzz ?
Wondering !
...Jean-Paul - and all you guys on s.geo.geology - "jonathan" is a
known troll. Most of us with any sense on sci.space.* killfiled him
*years* ago. Do yourselves - and us - a favor and killfile him as
well. You>ll be putting him out of our misery as well as your own.
Either that, or cut out the sci.space newsgroups.
[/quote]
How is it off topic?
How is exploring Mars off topic to space history, space policy
or geology?
I>d...I mean..a lot of people might find your explanation
enjoyable.
If you don>t like seeing my threads...spread, why dontcha
start some ..more interesting...threads of your own?
You>re the ones saying these ng>s are dying, but then
flame anyone that tries to start a conversation or a
debate. You can>t have it both ways, having little of
your own to say aside from jr high flames, then crying
there>s nothing but flames to read.
I>d rather talk about Mars or Politics or the
Future. Or how to design a goal for NASA
that could add a very big zero to it>s budget
someday.
Why anyone here would be bothered by that is
beyond me!
Unless..of course...you>re Anti-American or some other
kind of internet deviant~
[quote]
[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: Re: ...Giant Impact might explain Mars Oceans and Tharsis Up |
|
|
"Eric Chomko" <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:06528a06-3742-4935-9a58-c5b84b8a2aff@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 8:29 pm, "jonathan" <H...@write.instead.net> wrote:
[quote]Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature |
Asteroid smash turned Mars into 'takeaway pizza' planet
Not long after the planet was born, it was altered forever
by a meteoric blast, as this computer-simulated video
shows.http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080625/full/news.2008.916.html
Long interview with researchers and more detailed impact
simulation footage.http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/megaimpactonmars/
"Water throughout the history of Mars would>ve flowed north".
s
An impact? Where is the evidence of the crater, or where are the
striation marks?
[/quote]
Towards the end of the second link, they show some maps
that are fairly convincing. I don>t think their evidence is
conclusive though.
Asteroid smash turned Mars into 'takeaway pizza' planet
Not long after the planet was born, it was altered forever
by a meteoric blast, as this computer-simulated video shows.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080625/full/news.2008.916.html
Long interview with researchers and more detailed impact
simulation footage.
http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/megaimpactonmars/
Eric |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: Re: ...Giant Impact might explain Mars Oceans and Tharsis Up |
|
|
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message news:g41iss$pf7$1@aioe.org...
[quote]jonathan wrote:
Published online 25 June 2008 | Nature |
Asteroid smash turned Mars into 'takeaway pizza' planet
Not long after the planet was born, it was altered forever
by a meteoric blast, as this computer-simulated video shows.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080625/full/news.2008.916.html
Long interview with researchers and more detailed impact
simulation footage.
http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/megaimpactonmars/
"Water throughout the history of Mars would>ve flowed north".
That would explain the late term loss of a large fraction of the atmospheric
and water burden of the planet too. Plus, the soil appears to be overtly
alkaline. Curiouser and curiouser. Astrobiology just took a great leap
forward. Hopefully they>ll be able to get a few more experiments done on
Phoenix, before they fry all the electronics.
Earth appears to be right on the border of mass required to retain something
from these final planetary recombinations which occur.
[/quote]
So what happened to all the carbon? Maybe we need to do more
than 'scratch' the surface to find it? The alkaline soil is rather
friendly to life they say. I bet somewhere underground, the various
chemistries and radiation combined to let a layer melt and freeze
....over and over..
I mean soil like that, clay-like alkaline life-friendly soil can>t..all...fall
from the sky right? Between the octagon patterns, the soil properties
and underground ice, there has to be, or was, an active water
cycle there. If the sun drives it, this must be happening fairly
near the surface I would think. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:58 am Post subject: Re: ...Giant Impact might explain Mars Oceans and Tharsis U |
|
|
"kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message news:g44mr0$csk$3@aioe.org...
[quote]Ain>t gonna happen, fascist.
[/quote]
God forbid I become like OM, normal and decent and polite
all the time.
Conforming, to me, is like blending into the crowd.
Conforming, is a deliberate attempt to become invisible.
The Internet should NOT simply be a microcosm of society.
It should be the exact antithesis, where words, ideas and
thoughts matter most, and our station and place
in society matters the least.
To bring into usenet the vices and limitations of the real world
is like bringing the snake into the garden, it>s a shear
....ACT OF LUNACY. Even evil....dammit!
I won>t allow it.
Doesn>t anyone here have an abstract bone in their body?
Doesn>t anyone think science should be more about
what...could...be?
And you>re right, it>ll never happen. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Timberwoof
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: Re: ...Giant Impact might explain Mars Oceans and Tharsis U |
|
|
In article <Vgfak.17621$Xe.1742@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"jonathan" <Home@write.instead.net> wrote:
[quote]Doesn>t anyone here have an abstract bone in their body?
Doesn>t anyone think science should be more about
what...could...be?
[/quote]
So you>re upset because scientists don>t do what you want them to do.
Sorry to disappoint you, but science is about what is. But don>t
misunderstand that to mean that scientists don>t have imagination. It
takes imagination to come up with an explanation that fits the facts
well and makes predictions about what ... could be. Then the scientists
go back and see if they can find those things that ... could be.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
kT
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: Re: ...Giant Impact might explain Mars Oceans and Tharsis U |
|
|
Timberwoof wrote:
[quote]In article <Vgfak.17621$Xe.1742@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"jonathan" <Home@write.instead.net> wrote:
Doesn>t anyone here have an abstract bone in their body?
Doesn>t anyone think science should be more about
what...could...be?
So you>re upset because scientists don>t do what you want them to do.
Sorry to disappoint you, but science is about what is.
[/quote]
Actually, no, sorry, that>s only one aspect of science.
We use what we know about what is, to think up things that could be, in
order to continually test our understanding of the former. In other
words, we use our knowledge to build instruments to calibrate our
theories. Nature does the same thing when it constructs life forms.
We>re just mimicking nature because we too are of nature.
Get it? Don>t let the creationists get wise to it, ok? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: Re: ...Giant Impact might explain Mars Oceans and Tharsis U |
|
|
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-480D06.18533230062008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
[quote]In article <Vgfak.17621$Xe.1742@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"jonathan" <Home@write.instead.net> wrote:
Doesn>t anyone here have an abstract bone in their body?
Doesn>t anyone think science should be more about
what...could...be?
So you>re upset because scientists don>t do what you want them to do.
Sorry to disappoint you, but science is about what is. But don>t
misunderstand that to mean that scientists don>t have imagination. It
takes imagination to come up with an explanation that fits the facts
well and makes predictions about what ... could be. Then the scientists
go back and see if they can find those things that ... could be.
[/quote]
I>m upset because the current state of the art wrt scientific
methods is clearly at the Dark Age level. What 'science'
doesn>t get is that 'what is' is the same as 'what could be'.
Nature creates and problem solves using a very specific
process. An evolutionary process.
That process is not only the source of all 'that is' but
it>s also the answer to the perfect solution for any
given real world problem. Up to and including the
ideal societal system, or the ideal problem solving
system, or the ideal future. As evolutionary systems
...converge..naturally on the best possible solution.
As the process capable of producing intelligence
defines the ultimate or ideal creative process.
What 'science' doesn>t get is that the simplicity of the
universe is best seen by the most ...complex...the
universe has to offer.....LIFE. Not the other way around.
Today 'science' looks to reduce to the part...to simplicity..
to derive fundamental law. Somehow assuming that the
simplicity of the universe is best seen by the lowest common
denominator or the ...simplist...the universe has to offer, as
in particle physics.
NO, that is wrong. Science today has it all so entirely
backwards. Life...Darwin...is the path to understanding
the simplicity of the ....physical...universe.
NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
How much more backwards or ignorant can
science be???
Answer....it>s not possible to be MORE WRONG
that the modern science that is generally practiced
today.
Hence, we get the twentieth century, where technology
almost buries us from our ignorant use of 'modern'
scientific discoveries.
Scientifically...we now live in the Dark Ages.
The fundamental laws of the universe are to be
derived from the most complex the universe
has to offer....LIFE...DARWIN.
Not...PARTICLES....or quantum theory or Einstein etc.
Look at is this way, in a market system, it>s the emergent
system properties that result in the system self tuning
and converging on the optimum. Such emergent properties
only exist as a result of a complex adaptive...system.
A very complex system where the emergent (self tuning)properties
not only cannot be physically seen or touched, they cannot
even be accurately measured.
Yet those emergent forces guide the whole towards
the best answer, the create that which cannot be
understood. They give the universe it>s direction
defining time while also defining creation and beauty.
Yet they cannot be reduced, the minute you stop
a complex system, those emergent properties
vanish into thin air. Poof!
They cannot be quantified. Until you can explain
a 'market force' you can>t know anything about
reality.
[quote]--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." <Chris L.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
johac
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:45 am Post subject: Re: ED CONRAD>S FINAL POSTING -- Thank the God Lord |
|
|
In article <A099k.5005$LG4.3772@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]johac wrote:
In article <3_6dnT_tVemAXP7VnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f9d5603b-11e2-4bde-97c5-a203b1316829@r37g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
blues...@hotmail.com wrote:
MAN AS OLD AS COAL
http://www.edconrad.com
Sady, this willl be my final brief posting to the news groups.
Knowing braindead Ed, this only means that he>ll stick to
long messages from now on.
He>ll disappear for a while only to surface again under a new name.
Typical trollish behavior.
He already has. This morning, this thread was immediately under one started
by him.
[/quote]
As expected.
[quote]
I knew it was to good to be true.
[/quote]
Yes. WE can always hope can>t we?
--
John #1782 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
johac
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:46 am Post subject: Re: ED CONRAD>S FINAL POSTING -- Thank the God Lord |
|
|
In article <avt964h94p8e8gav3oqvcpr90hhk4a7gap@4ax.com>,
PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:00:09 -0700, johac
jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
MAN AS OLD AS COAL
http://www.edconradtheasshole.com
He>ll disappear for a while only to surface again under a new name.
Typical trollish behavior.
He never comes back as a new 'name', mostly because he>s a #1 kook.
Right in there with the MI-5 guy. <g
[/quote]
The undynamic duo.
--
John #1782 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
mich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: Re: ED CONRAD>S FINAL POSTING -- Thank the God Lord |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-D772EA.21463430062008@news.giganews.com...
[quote]In article <avt964h94p8e8gav3oqvcpr90hhk4a7gap@4ax.com>,
PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:00:09 -0700, johac
jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
MAN AS OLD AS COAL
http://www.edconradtheasshole.com
He>ll disappear for a while only to surface again under a new name.
Typical trollish behavior.
He never comes back as a new 'name', mostly because he>s a #1 kook.
Right in there with the MI-5 guy. <g
The undynamic duo.
--
John #1782
[/quote]
Is the MI-5 guy still around? I have in filtered out. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Timberwoof
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:47 am Post subject: Re: ...Giant Impact might explain Mars Oceans and Tharsis U |
|
|
In article <tJhak.14608$LL4.13278@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
"jonathan" <Home@write.instead.net> wrote:
[quote]"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-480D06.18533230062008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
In article <Vgfak.17621$Xe.1742@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"jonathan" <Home@write.instead.net> wrote:
Doesn>t anyone here have an abstract bone in their body?
Doesn>t anyone think science should be more about
what...could...be?
So you>re upset because scientists don>t do what you want them to do.
Sorry to disappoint you, but science is about what is. But don>t
misunderstand that to mean that scientists don>t have imagination. It
takes imagination to come up with an explanation that fits the facts
well and makes predictions about what ... could be. Then the scientists
go back and see if they can find those things that ... could be.
I>m upset because the current state of the art wrt scientific
methods is clearly at the Dark Age level. What 'science'
doesn>t get is that 'what is' is the same as 'what could be'.
Nature creates and problem solves using a very specific
process. An evolutionary process.
That process is not only the source of all 'that is' but
it>s also the answer to the perfect solution for any
given real world problem. Up to and including the
ideal societal system, or the ideal problem solving
system, or the ideal future. As evolutionary systems
...converge..naturally on the best possible solution.
As the process capable of producing intelligence
defines the ultimate or ideal creative process.
What 'science' doesn>t get is that the simplicity of the
universe is best seen by the most ...complex...the
universe has to offer.....LIFE. Not the other way around.
Today 'science' looks to reduce to the part...to simplicity..
to derive fundamental law. Somehow assuming that the
simplicity of the universe is best seen by the lowest common
denominator or the ...simplist...the universe has to offer, as
in particle physics.
NO, that is wrong. Science today has it all so entirely
backwards. Life...Darwin...is the path to understanding
the simplicity of the ....physical...universe.
NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
How much more backwards or ignorant can
science be???
Answer....it>s not possible to be MORE WRONG
that the modern science that is generally practiced
today.
[/quote]
No, your description is wrong.
Yes, there is the principle of OCcam>s Razor, which states that, all
things being equal, the simplest explanation is probably the best. But I
think you misrepresent what that>s about ...
[quote]Hence, we get the twentieth century, where technology
almost buries us from our ignorant use of 'modern'
scientific discoveries.
[/quote]
What? It>s the scientific method that brought that technology about.
Science certainly has got some things right.
[quote]Scientifically...we now live in the Dark Ages.
[/quote]
Uh, no. The application of the scientific method and seeking
naturalistic explanations rather than mystical or supernatural ones is
what differentiates modern science from medieval thinking.
[quote]The fundamental laws of the universe are to be
derived from the most complex the universe
has to offer....LIFE...DARWIN.
[/quote]
That>s an interesting definition of "fundamental".
[quote]Not...PARTICLES....or quantum theory or Einstein etc.
[/quote]
Why not?
[quote]Look at is this way, in a market system, it>s the emergent
system properties that result in the system self tuning
and converging on the optimum. Such emergent properties
only exist as a result of a complex adaptive...system.
A very complex system where the emergent (self tuning)properties
not only cannot be physically seen or touched, they cannot
even be accurately measured.
Yet those emergent forces guide the whole towards
the best answer, the create that which cannot be
understood. They give the universe it>s direction
defining time while also defining creation and beauty.
Yet they cannot be reduced, the minute you stop
a complex system, those emergent properties
vanish into thin air. Poof!
They cannot be quantified. Until you can explain
a 'market force' you can>t know anything about
reality.
[/quote]
That all sounds like philosophical balderdash to me. You set up a
caricature of science and say it>s wrong, then talk about how the only
way to really understand the universe is to investigate things that
can>t be understood. What sense does that make?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
