Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
Chinahand

Evolutionary Science And Its Implications

Recommended Posts

if you think i am some hick yokel then your as thick as horseshit and it was a waste of a university course that someone else would have put to better use you middle class arrogant tosser.

 

I do think that and and I didn't go to university, I left school at 16 to work in the same factory that my father still works in after 40+ years. Hardly 'middle class'.

 

I still gleefully await the explanation of sublimation in your own words that you're so inexplicably avoiding giving. For someone so insistent that other people back up their own statements with demonstrations of their own understanding, I'm puzzled why you would be so reluctant to comply with such a simple request.

 

I imagine the Hospice are rubbing their hands at their impending donation. Will you get a picture of you handing over the cheque please, that would be super.

 

 

im sure you would have included a quote in your post had you been able to .. and relished my having to keep my word with the hospice another £1000 ontop of what i have already donated would have meant nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well dont hold your breathe is all i can say.. .. im not your nodding dog.

 

In other words, you can't. Thanks for clearing that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in your nice little "you said/they said" post you forgot to mention this:

 

its a sad day when both the towering intellectual giants of the manx forums have to make long posts about no ice in space etc .. and attatch those comments to me .. just total and utter lies.

 

this is you accusing them of underhand argument tactics, you are maligning their character by claiming to be the victim of having them put words in your mouth and you then went on to say this:

 

i actually thought china had some character .. slim is just a troll.

 

you consider yourselves intellectuals yet you have to stoop to the lowest of the low. .. shabby shabby conduct even by your standards slim .. but i never thought china would stoop so low..

 

bit of rightous indignation on your part followed by:

 

i will donate £1000 to the local hospice if either of you respectable honest men can quote me as saying anywhere on any forum in the world that theres no ice in space etc etc..

 

i have since pointed out to you that your post does claim that there is no ice in space. when can the charity expect your kind donation?

 

loa try putting your reading glasses on m8 .. and actually go and read the original posts ffs.

 

we all know that you believe that the objects on the video are something other than ice, but at this time we are prepared to believe that it is ice.

 

and you all still will no matter whose words and studies i produce to the contrary even the shuttle logs will not shift them i know thats why i am going to state my whole case in one post .. then the reader can judge for himself the quality of the data and linked sources for themselves these people dont want to discuss any theories they just want to dominate and smother any rational discussion.

 

also is it so hard to get my name right? its 3 letters! Lao that its, its written beside every post i make.

 

 

Edited by manxman2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well dont hold your breathe is all i can say.. .. im not your nodding dog.

 

In other words, you can't. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

im happy your happy..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loa said.

 

a more pertinant question might be what would cause ice to melt in space at all, if it does not meet with the friction of an atmoshere or collide with an object travelling at speed?

 

i dont claim to be an expert on the subject, and the above might be better explained by someone with more up to date knowledge on the subject

 

 

i said.

 

 

ice doesnt melt in space .. it either super heats or super freezes .. which is for all intents and purposes the same thing.

 

it sublimates.

 

and i do not claim to be an expert either .. but i now know some people who are .. thanks for the advice .. atleast now someone is making an effort.

 

 

 

Slim said.

 

 

Can you explain how super heating is the same as super freezing? What has 'super freezing' got to do with melting?

 

 

I said.

 

 

super freezing and heating have virtually the same effect slim gasation i.e. sublimation.

 

basic school boy physics slim thought you may have knew that.

 

 

Slim said.

 

 

If it's basic school boy physics, why don't you explain to me how ice sublimates in space due to low temperatures like I asked? If ice sublimates at both high and low temperatures, are you saying there is no ice in space?

 

Why is it more pertinent to ask what would cause ice to melt in space? What are you trying to say?

 

 

I said.

 

 

if you wanbt to know slim research it yourself as i have .. i will decide what and when i post thanks.

 

 

Slim said

 

 

Why would you need to research basic schoolboy physics manxman2?

 

Do you know what this is?

 

 

h2o_phase_diagram_-_color.v2.jpg

 

 

 

Do you know why a comet only has a tail when it gets near the sun?

 

Do you know you're talking out of your hoop?

 

 

I said.

 

 

i know fullwell slim .. your determined to split hairs on anything.

 

 

see slim no liquid water in space .. all water molecules are either ice or vapour.

 

Design Reference Mission Case Study Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy Science Steering Committee.

 

SOFIA and the Formation of Water in the Cold Interstellar Medium

Fig. 1 shows a schematic of the oxygen chemistry that is believed to power water

formation in interstellar space. Chemical models (see Elitzur & de Jong 1978, Neufeld et al.

1995) show that for T >300 K, water vapor will account for most of the gas-phase oxygen

that is not bound as CO, as a result of the neutral-neutral reactions: H2 + O ! OH +

H and H2 + OH ! H2O + H. At temperatures less than 300 K, however, these reactions

are negligibly slow because they possess significant activation energy barriers. Gas-phase

water is then produced either by means of reactions of atomic oxygen with hydrogen on

grain surfaces with subsequent sublimation or via cosmic-ray driven ion-neutral chemistry,

as shown in Fig. 1. Water formed on grains will remain frozen on the grain until either the

grain temperature exceeds 110 K or the water molecule is photodesorbed by a UV photon.

SWAS and Odin observations have determined that the water vapor abundance in cold

gas is several orders of magnitude below theoretical expectations (see, e.g. Bergin et al.

2001). The primary solution provided as an answer to this question is that the formation of

water ice on grains results in a depletion of atomic oxygen from the gas. In this model the

fuel for the chemistry, oxygen atoms, is frozen onto grains in the form of water ice. This ice

will not evaporate unless temperatures exceed 110 K (Fraser et al. 2001) and hence most

oxygen is essentially unavailable to make water vapor or molecular oxygen in the gas. Thus

the low abundance of water vapor hints at a lack of gaseous atomic oxygen in the densest

regions of molecular cloud cores. Even a little amount of oxygen in the gas would create

water vapor that could be detected by SWAS and ODIN.

Herschel has a key program that focuses exclusively on water, Water in Star-Forming

Regions with Herschel (WISH; PI: E. van Dishoeck). This program will survey the spectrum

of activity in both low and high mass star forming regions. With access to multiple transi-

tions of both ortho and para forms of water, and higher angular resolution than SWAS/Odin,

Herschel will determine accurate water vapor abundances and thereby challenge these theo-

ries.

 

full evaluation here.

 

http://www.sofia.usra.edu/Science/science_.../Bergin2008.pdf

 

 

comets.

 

 

"The surface is about 5 percent ice, and the rest is just dark dirt. So it's like a very dirty skating rink."

 

source.

national geographic.

 

 

why not try sourcing your data slim.

 

 

Slim said.

 

 

I didn't say there was liquid in space. I'm questioning your statement regarding super freezing: "ice doesnt melt in space .. it either super heats or super freezes .. which is for all intents and purposes the same thing."

Why not try understanding the question manxman2, why doesn't the ice on the comet sublimate, if freezing and heating have the same effect? Why is it that the ice stays ice when it's further from the suns radiation but when it nears the sun, the ice turns into vapor forming the tail? Heating and cooling: not the same thing. The opposite in fact, a fairly basic principle of physics!

 

 

I said.

 

 

slim what part of i will post what i like when i like did you not understand ..??

 

lmao as slim realises the fundermental basis of his shuttle footage arguement is disintergrating in front of him lol.

 

hard for non existant ice crystals to go out of focus isnt it slim. debunkers have been falsely peddling that shit for years .. like i have said first we will eliminate what the footage doesnt show .. then speculate as to what it does depict.

 

i dont know who you think you are slim demanding answers .. ive told you do your research or i will fuuk you in the arse.

 

The opposite in fact, a fairly basic principle of physics. i am going to use that line to whip you with whipping boy .. your a joke.

 

your just repeating questions already answered on previous page .. and i am not supplying the other link to the virtually the same thing quote until i put up the shuttle footage thread then you can read it. .. until then do your own research .. and for the record i dont give a flying fuuk about comets and your efforts to diversify the discussion.

 

and if you think comet ice is chemically identical to shuttle ice then feel free to prove it.

 

i will bet you cannot..

 

chubby brown wrote a great song for you slim m8 .. it was called the back scuttle.

 

and heres another big numbers throw away line from the same world renowned physicist .. you have more chance of entering and winning every lottery in the would on the same weekend as you have of seeing a singular ice crystal in space.

................................................................................

....................................................................

 

h2o_phase_diagram_-_color.v2.jpg

 

 

 

Do you know why a comet only has a tail when it gets near the sun?

 

Do you know you're talking out of your hoop?

 

 

 

 

 

what was this bullshit about if you acknowledge now after having it pointed out too you that there is no liquid water in space..

how do you know ice doesnt vapourise/sublimate from a comet in deep space when super freezing anyway ..?? .. link to anything relevent to your unconfirmed/guess/assertion please .. again i will wager you cannot. .. ice does sublimate in deep space .. it just does it much more slowly..

 

try sticking your fingers onto some dry ice slim .. you will get them burned worse than here.

 

 

comets are also depleted by sublimation each time they come near the Sun. Ultimately, old comets may break into several pieces or even completely disintegrate. In some cases, the comet may have a solid rocky core that is then left to travel around the comet's orbit as a dark barren asteroid.

 

 

Slim says.

 

 

You think there's no ice in space? Read up on the Kupier Belt for example, and come back with that statement again.

 

I'm asking you questions to back up what your saying, that's all. Why are you getting so upset about it?

I've never claimed there was liquid water in space. What I'm questioning is your understanding of what happens to ice in a vaccum at both high and low temperatures. You said it was the same thing, and it isn't. You're wrong, sorry.

Because it's tail dissapears. It's explained in very simple language here: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/com...ublimation.html

Right, well done, the suns radiation causes the ice to sublimate. The temperature rises. This doesn't happen when its away from the sun, because what happens to the comet when it's hot is different from what happens when it's cold.

 

 

I say.

 

 

A comets tail disappears you say .. more incorrect assumption slim.

A comets tail does not disappear it mre becomes invisible in our norml light spectrum .. its has a clear tail in the infra red spectrum .. as it sublimates/vaporises its various components no matter what the temperature depending on how old the comet is and how well insulted the various materials are.

 

A comet like halle bop has an estimated 2000 star passes before extinction or if it has a solid rock core becomes an asteroid.

 

The diagram you posted above clearly shows your intent on showing the different transitional stages of a water molecule in space .. that was before i made it abundantly clear to you that water in space only exists in solid or gaseous form.

 

Keep digging your own verbal grave .. twisting other peoples words or plain fabricating them to look and sound the part .. i will just keep posting solid indisputable fact and links to that fact ..you will notice the links were from pretty indisputable sources so keep guessing slim and i will just keep shooting your guesses down with true facts not guestimates .. everything i put here is linkable to its source.

 

 

Slim says

 

 

That's simply incorrect. I'm talking about the tail formed from the sublimation effect you raised as the comet gets close to the sun, that dissapears when it goes away from the sun. This is because it's the suns radiation that causes the sublimation that creates the tail. I'm using that example to demonstrate that sublimation of a solid (the ice of the comet) to a gas (the tail) only happens when it's heated, not cooled. How is anything that's visible in the infra red spectrum applicable to a discussion about ice sublimation? Does the vapour suddenly become invisible only in infra red at certain temperatures?

 

 

I say

 

 

Thats exactly what we were talking about slim. .. we all know what happens to a comet passing a heat source.

However you didn’t know that a comet sublimates its components from the second its created until it dies.

Feel free to prove me wrong ive had enough of you demanding i prove you unfounded garbage incorrect .. you wont ofcourse because if you could emphatically show it you would..

Until then its take slims unfounded word on it eh.

 

 

Slim says

 

 

Yes, passes. It gets smaller as it passes a heat source. It doesn't get smaller out in deeper space away from the star. That's the point I'm trying to get you to understand, the effect of heating and cooling on ice in a vacuum isn't the same, as demonstrated by a comet.

 

 

I say.

 

 

Just a rehash repeated Q. Slim its no good you guessing .. read the sofia report and shut the fuckup about something you know sweet f.a. about in any detail.

 

 

Slim says.

 

 

Where's your linkable source that says heating and cooling have the same effect on ice in space?

 

 

I say.

 

 

The data is available from many sources im not your lacky slim .. you either look or wait until i am finished compiling my thread opener.

Slim says

 

Your video didn't have a singular object, it had hundreds. What's the relevance of the quote?

 

 

I say.

 

 

If you cannot see the relevance of the throw away quote then i am not leading you to water

You will however re-alise too late at a later point in time.

 

 

Slim says

 

 

Ice warms up when you take it from the freezer you nut job. Does ice steam when you put it from the warm into the freezer? No!

 

 

I say

 

 

Well done for quoting the obvious .. and a sealed freezer has a drain on it just for cosmetic value i suppose. .. anyway it was an example of water going from stage 1 directly to stage 3 bypassing the liquid phase but thats too complicated i suppose.

Edited by manxman2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok im stopping this derail. china now has reopened the thread regarding this in general chat, go there to argue that the video in question shows alien technology.

 

 

here is a great video of Aronra disecting the recent IDA discovery, he does a great job. it is also a response to a video made by some creationist idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you need to quote the entire thread?

 

Thats exactly what we were talking about slim. .. we all know what happens to a comet passing a heat source.

However you didn’t know that a comet sublimates its components from the second its created until it dies.

Feel free to prove me wrong ive had enough of you demanding i prove you unfounded garbage incorrect .. you wont ofcourse because if you could emphatically show it you would..

Until then its take slims unfounded word on it eh.

 

My post isn't unfounded. The tail is a visible sign of sublimation. The tail grows as the comet nears the sun, then shrinks as it goes away. That's my evidence of sublimation, making my post not unfounded, and proving you wrong. If you want to disagree with me, and you have multiple times, it's up to you to prove that what I'm saying isn't the case.

 

 

Just a rehash repeated Q. Slim its no good you guessing .. read the sofia report and shut the fuckup about something you know sweet f.a. about in any detail.

 

What's the sofia report?

 

The data is available from many sources im not your lacky slim .. you either look or wait until i am finished compiling my thread opener

 

I have looked, I can't find any. You made the claim, I don't require many sources, just provide me with one credible scientific source that says the effect of heating is the same as the effect of cooling on ice in space, thanks.

 

If you cannot see the relevance of the throw away quote then i am not leading you to water

You will however re-alise too late at a later point in time.

 

Your continued refusal to provide any backup or explaination to what you say means I can only conclude that you've no understanding of what you're posting. You're just cut n pasting, aren't you?

 

Well done for quoting the obvious .. and a sealed freezer has a drain on it just for cosmetic value i suppose. .. anyway it was an example of water going from stage 1 directly to stage 3 bypassing the liquid phase but thats too complicated i suppose.

 

A freezer has a drain on it for defrosting. Defrosting happens when you raise the temperature. Defrosting doesn't happen when you lower the temperature. Raising and lowering the temperature are two different things, they are not the same. Besides, my fridge isn't in space.

 

I understand sublimation Manxman, I don't require proof of that. What I don't understand is your statement that heating is the same as cooling. Could you just explain that one please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is the most stupid waste of time I have ever come across.

 

MM2 - I am sorry, but I simply cannot follow what you are trying to say anymore. Your inability to use the quote function, to sumarize, to explain your point, to be coherent is simply making it impossible for me to understand what your point is.

 

You are putting up long, bloated posts where you make multiple statements which lead off into multiple dead end arguments.

 

I have very little idea what your point is at the moment.

 

I thought you were trying to say that you cannot have ice crystals in space and were trying to use an authority to make that claim. I've quoted where you said that, Lao has requoted it, I cannot follow your point at all.

 

I simply tried to show you that that claim was wrong.

 

If that wasn't your point I apologise I don't understand and trying to quote the entire thread at me, slim, or Lao (please note the spelling) isn't going to help.

 

I thought this was an argument about some videos you've put up. I and various other posters say what these videos show are ice and similar debris floating around the shuttle which when filmed with a camera set to focus on objects much further away produce out of focus blobs with features such as notches and halos etc.

 

I've put up various primary documents from NASA etc discussing optical contamination from the Shuttle, papers on water dumps etc forming such ice and debris.

 

You've put up page upon page of quotations about aliens, Roswell etc, and have now spent pages going on about ice in space.

 

Are you claiming that ice cannot exist around the shuttle? And hence are saying the objects filmed cannot be ice and hence have to be something different.

 

That is what I believed you were doing - though as I've already mentioned as you have disavowed so much of what you've put up - quotes about Aliens, Roswell etc I am basically clueless what is your beef.

 

Quite simply - I believe the videos you've put up are ice and other debris creating something which NASA calls optical contamination.

 

I've tried to show you this is a well known and uncontroversial area of space science - one which is not only an inconvenience for the observation experiments but one which also has safety and instrument life issues when the ice particles hit the shuttle and its equipment.

 

As so often happens in these types of threads I basically trust the experts who spend their lives doing research in this area - I am certain these people would dream of having a Nature paper with their name on it which confirms the existence of super advanced space technologies. They are certain that these videos don't show anything to get excited about. I believe them - on reviewing what they've published about optical contamination and in attempting to explain the videos I see knowledgeable, informed, genuine attempts to explain.

 

Other people may see cover-ups and an unwillingness to talk - I don't.

 

I am very doubtful that I'll have a sudden epiphany and change my mind - but if these videos become a part of a paper published in Science or Nature it is likely I'll then say I was wrong. Until that happens I think it is pointless me posting anything more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is the most stupid waste of time I have ever come across.

Quite right! You should have a word with whoever started it! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty I've thought about deleting it and starting again!

 

I like debating evolution and creationism - I believe its an important issue.

 

I also like debating the scientific attempts to examine extraterrrestial life and intelligence; and so created a different thread to discuss that.

 

We are doing neither of these things at the moment. In all honesty I have no idea what MM2's point is at the moment. He believes he's seeing evidence of a super advanced technology. And HAS made various allusions to it being either directly aliens, or earthlings unknown using that technology (and if that doesn't involve a conspiracy I don't know what would!).

 

I've tried to explain why I believe he's wrong - I feel that saying his posts show ignorance is true - and there is nothing wrong with ignorance - I am ignorant of many many things.

 

And I think it is reasonably objective to say they are rambling and inchorent. He's definitely baiting and pugnatious. I've never said anything about him being retarded.

 

He's deeply offended by what I've said - well its the internet, and I believe he's big enough to take it. I pretty certain he's thrown more than few insults in this thread. But what is obvious is that its going nowhere.

 

The one thing I genuinely don't understand is why he thinks he's disproved the "ice particle" hypothosis - MM2 I doubt it is worth your effort, but I think it is indesputable that the shuttle creates an atmosphere full of ice, dust and other such debris as it moves in its orbit. If you film something in the distance you will have to film through this atmosphere - simple question are you saying that's not true? Yes or No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually within a formal debate there is an audience looking on, with their own individual perspectives of the topic. As the arguments and rebuttals take place, they are allowed to make their own mind up as to whether their beliefs had shifted one way or another.

 

What might be interesting is whether anybody on here was persuaded, at any time, by any of MM2's arguments and links during this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i will donate £1000 to the local hospice if either of you respectable honest men can quote me as saying anywhere on any forum in the world that theres no ice in space etc etc..

 

...

 

i will post the reciept from the hospice to this thread if you manage to quote me on the alledged quotes .. i have at least got enough integrity too do that .. infact i may be a rough diamond but i have more integrity in my little finger than both of you have between you in your whole bodies .. shameful shameful conduct.

hard for non existant ice crystals to go out of focus isnt it slim. debunkers have been falsely peddling that shit for years .. like i have said first we will eliminate what the footage doesnt show .. then speculate as to what it does depict.
and heres another big numbers throw away line from the same world renowned physicist .. you have more chance of entering and winning every lottery in the would on the same weekend as you have of seeing a singular ice crystal in space.

MM2 are you sure you don't owe the hospice £100? You seem to be disowning the second quote (I genuinely don't understand what you hoped to achieve in writing it if it wasn't to support your argument - which if it isn't that these can't be ice crystals then I don't understand you), but the first one doesn't seem to be refering to anyone else and seems to definitely be you saying that ice crystals are "non existant" and to claim that ice crystals exist is to be peddling shit.

 

If this quote isn't saying what it seems to be saying in plain text - could you please explain to me what it does mean - otherwise just drop in a cheque when your next at the hospice shop. If you post the receipt I'll double it and do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What might be interesting is whether anybody on here was persuaded, at any time, by any of MM2's arguments and links during this thread.

As thread creator I can edit the topic to add a poll - so lets see shall we.

 

Admittedly more than likely only 10 or so people will vote, but it'll be interesting to see what people say!

 

Ans etc - no cheating please! I dread to behold MM2's reaction when 1,000,000 people tell him he's not making any sense!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok just voted.

 

am curious to see what this other guy loa voted.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...