Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids


"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1128697195.580090.252290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
| > | We have learned that Androcles is so stupid
| > | that he fails to realize that his statement:
| > | "If the Moon were a fluid it would break
| > | apart like droplets of mercury."
| > | is factually wrong.
| >
| > Learn the contrapositive.
| > The moon does not break up into droplets of mercury, therefore
| > the moon is not fluid. That's a fact.
|
| Now, THAT'S an interesting bit of logic. :-)

Nah... old hat.

|
| Let A = fluid Moon
| and B = Moon breaks apart
|
| Now you claim:
| A => B
|
| and you "prove" that by claiming that
| ((NOT B) => (NOT A)) = true
| is an observed fact.
|
| But is it? Of course it isn't.
| The observed fact is:
| ((NOT B) AND (NOT A)) = true

You can "AND" with "the moon has craters" AND "the Sun shines" AND
"daffodils are yellow", all of which are observed facts, it makes no
difference.
We don't need the "AND".
((NOT B) => (NOT A)) = true is an observed fact, but is it, yes it is,
and
anyone that says "Of course it isn't" has to be a raving lunatic OR
tusselad
INCLUSIVE OR both.

Not too logical, are you?

[skip over reading the rant, leave for posterity].

|
| The fact is that:
| ((NOT B) => (NOT A)) = false
| of the very same reason as
| (A => B) = false
|
| The fact that the Moon hasn't broken apart
| doesn't _imply_ that it is NOT fluid,
| and a fluid Moon doesn't _imply_ that it
| would break apart.
|
| Quite the contrary.
| As I have told you several times:
|| You would have to bring the Moon very close to
|| the Earth before anything like that would happen.
|| The critical distance is the Roche limit.
|| The Roche limit for a liquid Moon is 2.86 Earth radii.
|| The orbital radius is 21 times bigger than that.
|| A liquid Moon would do just fine.
|| And its shape would be the same.
|| (A sphere slightly distorted by the tidal forces.)

Yes indeed. We can see the moon, we can't see the binary
system you claim Algol is.


The K2 is too close to the B8, but you haven't tempered your
claim with an "IF". You've stated the K2 IS a component of
the binary Algol system, and now you want to divert attention
away from the fact that you are totally illogical.
Algol is a binary star system, one of which is an accretion disk
that bounces off the surface, isn't it, quite the contrary?
It is quite the contrary amazing you haven't made it to crank.net.
Here are some that have:
Ken Seto,
http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/
Henri Wilson
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/H-aether.htm
Len Gaasenbeek
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek/
Perspicacious
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Why don't you write up a web page and get on the honours list?
I tried but I can't find me there, you may have more success.
This should do it:
"But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and
density, and the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit
of the K2, while the K2 is just at the Roche limit of the B8.
That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and mass
is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart and there
is an accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn.
(This accretion disk is not stable, though. It is a transient
disk; the mass transferred from the K2 bounces off the surface
of the B8 and eventually falls back to the surface.) "

|
| > You are a stupid tusselad who thinks Algol is eclipsed by an
accretion
| > disk that bounces of the surface, that's a fact.
|
| You didn't get that quite right, did you? :-)

What did I miss? The B8 is eclipsed by an accretion disk, perhaps?
The original data you supplied? I can easily google for it.


|
| >
| > | Androcles' comment:
| > | " I preceeded that with "If", tusselad; how could you
| > | screw up such a simple case of elementary logic?"
| > | have taught us that Androcles is so stupid that he thinks
| > | his statement: "If the Moon were a fluid
| > | it would break apart like droplets of mercury."
| > | is correct just because it starts with an "If".
| > |
| > | Androcles' comment:
| > | "The rings of Saturn are factually wrong, are they, tusselad?"
| > | has further taught us that Androcles is so stupid that he
| > | thinks that unless the Moon of the planet Earth would break
| > | apart like droplets of mercury if it were fluid, the rings
| > | of the planet Saturn cannot exist.
|
| And now we have learned that Androcles is
| so stupid that he believes:
| ((NOT B) AND (NOT A)) = (A => B)

I didn't write that, tusselad. You did. Would you like to be sued
for libel? It won't help your career as assistant janitor at HIA,
or whatever it is you do there.
Androcles.

.