Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

[Anders Lindman]

I want a simple, straight answer without all your typical evasion and tap-dancing. Please answer this question with either the word "yes" or the word "no":

Do you believe I'm lying about the authenticity of Apollo?

We can go on like children about this. But I will not reply any more to such questions.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

We can go on like children about this. But I will not reply any more to such questions.

I don't believe Jay is the one being the child here, so if you believe that exchange is childish, it would be your own doing.

 

[JayUtah]

We can go on like children about this. But I will not reply any more to such questions.

Of course you won't. That's because you're an intellectual coward.

If you really believed any of the hogwash you were spewing, you'd take responsibility for it. You'll imply that I'm a liar, but you won't actually say it to my face.

Can I assume you've conceded your claim that there is a vast threat keeping the knowledgeable professionals from telling the truth about Apollo?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Of course you won't. That's because you're an intellectual coward.

If you really believed any of the hogwash you were spewing, you'd take responsibility for it. You'll imply that I'm a liar, but you won't actually say it to my face.

Can I assume you've conceded your claim that there is a vast threat keeping the knowledgeable professionals from telling the truth about Apollo?

Maybe you are truly concerned about this and not just trying to irritate me, so let me say that I generally don't pay much attention to who says something. So what you say or have said or what someone else has said, I can't usually separate. I focus on WHAT is being said, not generally WHO says it.

Here is Eckhart Tolle talking about identification with thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbj4nLOPN8o

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Maybe you are truly concerned about this and not just trying to irritate me, so let me say that I generally don't pay much attention to who says something. So what you say or have said or what someone else has said, I can't usually separate. I focus on WHAT is being said, not generally WHO says it.

Here is Eckhart Tolle talking about identification with thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbj4nLOPN8o

All that does is expand your accusations of lying or ignorance to everyone.

 

[JayUtah]

Maybe you are truly concerned about this and not just trying to irritate me.

I'm trying to get you to be responsible for your claims.

You're implying that I'm either a liar or incompetent at my profession. Either own up to one or the other of those insinuations, or withdraw the claim. You don't get to spew hogwash forever without being compelled to back it up.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I'm trying to get you to be responsible for your claims.

You're implying that I'm either a liar or incompetent at my profession. Either own up to one or the other of those insinuations, or withdraw the claim. You don't get to spew hogwash forever without being compelled to back it up.

LOL. I guess you don't know Anders very well yet. Back him into a corner far enough and he'll disappear for a week then come back with new hogwash.

 

[Anders Lindman]

All that does is expand your accusations of lying or ignorance to everyone.

No. I simply not trust anything people write on Internet forums. I have no clue who could be lying or not. In fact, I'm not even interested in such kind of thoughts. Because that's just adding to the confusion. Authoritative sources such as prestigious scientific journals I trust more but even then I start with a doubt!

 

[Anders Lindman]

Trust is basically redundant, lol. Either I know something that I have verified for myself or can see directly that it's the truth, or I don't know. When I don't know I don't trust any secondary source. Then there is the other kind of trust; that of trusting other people. If someone asks me: "Do you trust me?" Then I may say things like: "I trust that you will do what you think is the best." So that kind of trust is also kind of redundant.

 

[jaydeehess]

Really? The query is really quite straightforward;
Either you accept JU's stated credentials in which case, according to you, he is lieing about Apollo;
OR
You reject his claimed credentials in which case you ipso facto are stating he is a liar about his credentials.

OR: you accept his credentials and his statements on the veracity of Apollo.

There are no other choices, right?

There are other choices. I already told you that I have doubt about all the information on Internet forums. Doubt means uncertainty. How can you be certain about uncertainty? It just doesn't compute.

Are you calling me a liar or not?

Keep in mind that for many people here, my reputation precedes me. Unlike many people you may encounter, I'm known to be who I say I am. Although I'm not a NASA scientist; I'm a space scientist and engineer. One doesn't have to work for NASA in order to do that.

It will be very hard for you to convince the people who have followed by work on this topic for the past 12 years that I'm not extremely well informed regarding the manned exploration of the Moon. Therefore I am most definitely one of the ones whom you say should be cowed into silence.

Are you calling me a liar? Yes or no.

Of course you won't. That's because you're an intellectual coward.

If you really believed any of the hogwash you were spewing, you'd take responsibility for it. You'll imply that I'm a liar, but you won't actually say it to my face.

Can I assume you've conceded your claim that there is a vast threat keeping the knowledgeable professionals from telling the truth about Apollo?

Hilited: exactly the phrase that came to my mind earlier today.

Anders, there are NO other choices than the ones I listed .

That you will not actually come out and use the four letter word that describes what you ARE saying about JU points to your own cowardice.

I do not have the credentials that Jay has but I do have a modicum of physics and chemistry education, 25 years of technical experience in electronics, and 40 years of reading articles of scientific interest. With all that I have never experienced a moment of 'what, no that's wrong' in anything that Jay Utah has posted on the internet and which I have read.
,,,,and there's the rub. You, with absolutly no scientific education, experience or training, stand ready to judge posts by people who have demonstrated to others who have similar education and experience, that they indeed are knowledgable in the subjects at hand.

You are a fraudulent intellectual, and coward to boot.
You prove this with almost every post. I have to wonder why you would do this. The size of your ego seems to be inversely related to the breadth of your ignorance.

 

[jaydeehess]

No. I simply not trust anything people write on Internet forums. I have no clue who could be lying or not. In fact, I'm not even interested in such kind of thoughts. Because that's just adding to the confusion. Authoritative sources such as prestigious scientific journals I trust more but even then I start with a doubt!

The education in the sciences that I use are demonstrably the same as those taught to everyone in any science course in the entire world. These concepts WORK. They have been proven to WORK in countless experiments. The concepts have been modified over the centuries to BETTER explain observed events.
One need no more than these concepts to understand that Apollo missions did go to the Moon and return their human occupants.

You do not 'trust' millions of people who having this education declare that the missions were what they are advertised as being.

How do you function in society?

 

[jaydeehess]

No. I simply not trust anything people write on Internet forums. I have no clue who could be lying or not. In fact, I'm not even interested in such kind of thoughts. Because that's just adding to the confusion. Authoritative sources such as prestigious scientific journals I trust more but even then I start with a doubt!

Perhaps those who have been following your posts are used to this but I am flabbergasted, honestly.

<< here I was thinking that I had experienced the height of ignorance with Clayton Moore, ergo and tmd.
I was incorrect.

makes me sad...........

 

[Anders Lindman]

The education in the sciences that I use are demonstrably the same as those taught to everyone in any science course in the entire world. These concepts WORK. They have been proven to WORK in countless experiments. The concepts have been modified over the centuries to BETTER explain observed events.
One need no more than these concepts to understand that Apollo missions did go to the Moon and return their human occupants.

You do not 'trust' millions of people who having this education declare that the missions were what they are advertised as being.

How do you function in society?

Most of science I trust. Even things that I don't understand myself such as quantum mechanics I trust to be a fairly correct theory. But I don't automatically trust even mainstream science, since I believe there can be Big Lie hoaxes sometimes, such as Einstein's relativity. Of course I believed for example that atom bombs were real some years ago, but then when I took a closer look when examining some other conspiracy theory (I don't remember which) then I discovered that the atom bomb may actually be a Big Lie hoax!

 

[sts60]

Are you calling me a liar or not?

Keep in mind that for many people here, my reputation precedes me. Unlike many people you may encounter, I'm known to be who I say I am. Although I'm not a NASA scientist; I'm a space scientist and engineer. One doesn't have to work for NASA in order to do that.

It will be very hard for you to convince the people who have followed by work on this topic for the past 12 years that I'm not extremely well informed regarding the manned exploration of the Moon. Therefore I am most definitely one of the ones whom you say should be cowed into silence.

Are you calling me a liar? Yes or no.

I am a practicing space engineer, and have worked on civil, commercial, and military projects over the past two decades. I have degrees in space physics, electrical engineering, and systems engineering. I have worked for engineers and astronauts who go back to Apollo and before.

Unlike AL, I am qualified to evaluate Jay's credentials from his extensive posting history on multiple forums. His reputation does indeed preceed him; that's not a boast, it's a fact.

And, like Jay, I accept the Apollo record because I have relevant knowledge and experience.

AL, on the other hand, is completely ignorant of every field relevant to spaceflight, or in this case, physics. He is a dishonest, lazy troll to boot, who simply makes up stuff to get the grown-ups to pay attention to him, and deliberately ignores the endless number of instances where his silly claims have been refuted by people who actually know what they're talking about.

ETA:

...You are a fraudulent intellectual, and coward to boot.
You prove this with almost every post. I have to wonder why you would do this. The size of your ego seems to be inversely related to the breadth of your ignorance.

(bolding mine)

I suspect you meant, "directly related to". But perhaps a higher exponent is warranted.

 

[JayUtah]

Trust is basically redundant, lol.

No one is asking you to trust anything. We're asking you to navigate successfully through the web of insinuations and veiled accusations you've created for yourself. If you can't come up with a coherent way of doing that, then you lose the privilege of talking with honest, intelligent people. If you just pile more equivocation on top of that, the you are indeed the intellectual coward you appear to be.

The other day you boldly told us that we were all gullible fools, and that we should take you seriously. But why should we, when you won't even stand by your own beliefs? You want to pat yourself on the back for being so clever and "open-minded," but you don't care to face the consequences of what you claim.

Either I know something that I have verified for myself or can see directly that it's the truth, or I don't know.

Hardly. When you don't know something, you don't reserve judgment. Instead, you just make something up -- either a completely ignorant allegation of fact, or else a new expanded theory that puts a new nefarious overlord in charge of the subject matter in question.

Even when dragged kicking and screaming to things you can verify yourself, you won't. You defend the predetermined belief at all costs.

When I don't know I don't trust any secondary source.

Of course you do. We've had this discussion before. You go find an "authority" that seems to confirm what you believe. Good grief, you've done that twice just today. Your judgment of whether a source is credible or not is whether it confirms or refutes what you already believe.

Please stop trying to have a meta-discussion. You've accused me of lying and I want to know if you have any evidence to back it up.

 

[Anders Lindman]

You go find an "authority" that seems to confirm what you believe.

That I believe COULD be correct, yes, not that I know 100% is true.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The education in the sciences that I use are demonstrably the same as those taught to everyone in any science course in the entire world. These concepts WORK. They have been proven to WORK in countless experiments.

Obligatory xkcd:

 

[jaydeehess]

(bolding mine)

I suspect you meant, "directly related to". But perhaps a higher exponent is warranted.

Ahh, yes, I had originally thought to post "inversely related to the narrowness of your knowledge" but thought to make it more relevent with a reference to his ignorance. Forgot to invert the formula when inverting the parameter.

 

[R.A.F.]

No. I simply not trust anything people write on Internet forums. I have no clue who could be lying or not.

That is where we have the "advantage" over you...we know when you are lying about things, scientific, because we actually know the answers.

 

[nomuse]

Ander...to me, "trust" is because of the lack of a "bright line." I dabble in science, sure. I am no expert! But in every bit that I have done, from reading, from experiment, to building devices that actually work, I have never ran across in any text, page, forum, discussion, or class, the phrase "Please stop here; the science that follows is too advanced for you."

The point is that my explorations have been random. If there was some wall beyond which existed the science I am not allowed to know about, how would anyone know how to design the shape of that wall? I might dip shallowly in photometrics. I might go deeply into metallurgy. And yet there is no sign ever of getting closer to this imaginary wall. There is no sense ever of the numbers beginning to move subtly away from the experimental results I've had myself.

I trust because science appears to be a smooth graduation from what I know and have personally tested, to what I don't know YET but have opened a book on, to what I know only a little about and don't expect to learn much more (but that could change); and because across this field, I have never seen even the shadow of a gatekeeper.