🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec21.195029.5158@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
=>2. Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the
=>atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the "mixing
=>effect of the wind."
=
=There is no suprise at finding an unstable substance near its source and that it
=be less common the further away from the source it gets.  It breaks down.

Obviously the creationist (or equivanent thereof) who posted the original
question has never been to Los Angeles! :-)

=>4. Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gasses, the
=>motion of the molecules, if affected by a mechanical cause, must subside
=>because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the
=>gravitational pull of the earth.
=
=He appears to thing that there is some kind of gravitational collapse here?  I would
=think that a brief study of the kinetic property of gasses would easily show the
=fallacy in this statement.

No, it's just that the moron has never heard of (or didn't understand)
statistical mechanics.  In particular, the names Maxwell and Boltzman are
clearly foreign to him.

=7. ...As the movement of anticyclones cannot be explained by the mechanistic principles
=>of gravitation and rotation, it must be concluded that the rotation of cyclones is also
=>unexplained.
=
=I do not recall any such problem.

But the moron in question appears to be of the opinion that he can observe the
coriolis effect using a toilet a foot from the equator.

=>8. ...the unequal distribution of masses (land in northers vs southern hemispheres)
=>does not effect the position of the earth...Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and
=>snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should
=>interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.
=
=What does "effect the position of the earth" and "equilibrium of the earth" mean,
=and how large effect should a tiny fraction of one percent have?

I think that the moron assumes that, if we get too much snow in the southern
hemisphere, it will make the earth flip :-)

=>9. Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of
=>gravitation.
=
=News to me.  He's quoting 1855 reports.  What does more recent observation indicate?
=I've been directly involved in a project where the seabed was mapped using this
=trick - I recall no such problem.

News to NASA, too.  They've had to take mascons into consideration for quite
some time now.

=>13.  If planets and satellites were once molten masses...they would not have
=>been able to obtain spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as
=>.Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)
=
=I do not see this conclusion.  Even drops of water, not rotating, go spherical in
=free fall.

But, you see, the moron doesn't understand that if you seek to minimize
gravitational potential of an homogenous substance, you end up putting it in a
sphers.  Obviously he's also got an anti-gravity machine he wants to sell us!

=>17.  The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the
=>satellites...but this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome
=>this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.
=
=I may be incorrect, but photonic/solar wind pressure seems several orders of magnitude
=for this to have an observable effect.

Even it that weren't the case, the moron has missed an important point:  Light
pressure on the Earth in January is equal and opposite to light pressure in
June.  The net effect of this light pressure is to increase the diameter of the
Earth's orbit.

=>18. The sun moves in space...This motion, according to Lodge (1918) must change the
=>eccentricties of some of the planetary orbits to an extent that far exceeds the observed
=>values.
=
=Anything more recent than a 1918 calculation not borne out by observation?  What did
=he do wrong?

Ah, c'mon now!  You've GOT to accept any and all pseudo-science the moron has
swallowed!  If you demand actual observations, you're not playing fair!

=>21. (paraphrase: variance in altitude of ionosphere as observed through radio
=>transmissions cannot be explained by tidal forces)
=
=What does tide have to do with ionospheric effects?  Solar radiation, yes.

Well, you see, the moron has a grand unified theory of everything.  Gravitation
and E&M are not just explained in the same terms, they're identical.  Hence if
gravitation can't explain your transistor radio, it can't work!  Better turn it
in for a refund before it notices!


=>24.Meteors, after entering the terrestrial atmosphere at about 200km above the ground,
=>are violently displaced towards the east.
=
=What is he talking about?

Well, if you send something toward the center of the Earth, then to an object
on the surface, it looks like it's moving east.  Once again you've denied one
of the moron's premises:  The Earth is the fixed, unmoving, center of the
universe.  You're assuming the Earth rotates.  The moron should castigate you
for that heresy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.