PDA

View Full Version : James McCanney weighs in on Sedna



Lycus
2004-Mar-17, 11:18 PM
According to the "Professor" ( :P ), the existence of Sedna disproves NASA's idea that comets are "dirty snowballs", proves that all his theories are correct, and will shake the very foundations of astronomy.

"How?" you ask. I have no idea. I can't make heads or tails of his rant. See if you can interpret it (http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/).

Francis
2004-Mar-17, 11:37 PM
That web site is extremely difficult to read. His use of centered text, colored print over a patterned background, makes it hard to wade through the stuff. I got dizzy trying to read it all.

He also claims that Sedna is a comet nucleus. I don't recall seeing any reference to that in the announcement, though. Did anyone else?

Francis

JohnOwens
2004-Mar-18, 12:20 AM
Oh lord, not another plasma-accounts-for-everything nutter. Does anyone who's braved the entire text know if he claims plasma discharges are responsible for craters, too? :roll:

NightHawk
2004-Mar-18, 12:38 AM
I'm sorry but I find it hard to take anyone seriously who designed a website like that. :oops:

Maybe he should go here and learn a few things.

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

frogesque
2004-Mar-18, 12:52 AM
NightHawks sig:


What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory (insert least favorite test animal, person), we can assume it will be pretty bad.
{changed as per Frogesque's request }

ROFL!

Regarding lousey websites, if you highlight the text they usually become readable unless the font is poor or too small. If it's important I copy/paste it into word and re-style it but the content has to be worth the effort. From what's been said I don't think I'll even bother to go look.

frogesque
2004-Mar-18, 01:41 AM
OK so I did go peek at the website. It's not a rant, it's a sales pitch for a load of CD's, books (you need the set!) pamphlets and probably T shirts as well.

As to the content on his homepage what can I say, I thought that meteors were comets stripped of their icy layers by passage round the sun so where's the cover-up and disinformation? Young comet = white, middle aged comet = black (probably altered crosslinked hydrocarbons, tar like residue) and meteroites the metallic/stoney/composite core remains of what's left after all the volatiles have evaporated on passage through Earth's atmosphere. Maybe a simplistic view but good enough for lay folk to understand.

The only cover-up conspiracy I can find is the hype that leads to the shopping cart on that site and others like it.

As an aside, I remember watching a fantastic meteor shower a few years back. Some incandesence was distinctly green with luminous red trails lasting a minute or more. Surely it is possible to deduce meteor compostion by spectral ananlysis? (Though you would have to be quick!)

JohnOwens
2004-Mar-18, 01:44 AM
Regarding lousey websites, if you highlight the text they usually become readable unless the font is poor or too small. If it's important I copy/paste it into word and re-style it but the content has to be worth the effort. From what's been said I don't think I'll even bother to go look.

That can work wonders for websites that have chosen a foreground color too close to the background color, or where the text bleeds over into areas which aren't the prevalent background color. But this is rather the opposite, too garishly contrasting. Bright yellow on a powder blue patterned background (might be darker than powder blue, I don't know the exact term). In a few places, very light blue against the same background, but still readable. It's more a matter of tackiness and poor layout than the insufficient contrast that that would solve. Oh, and the font is rather oversized, too.

NightHawk
2004-Mar-18, 02:00 AM
I design websites and his being a site that I would think he wants taken seriously should be designed with the visitor in mind. If I was trying to get a point across I would make it as easy to read as possible.

One of my pet peeves is having an extremely large amount of information on one page. :x

N C More
2004-Mar-18, 02:30 AM
OK so I did go peek at the website. It's not a rant, it's a sales pitch for a load of CD's, books (you need the set!) pamphlets and probably T shirts as well.



Oh yeah, there it is the bottom line...money. They are all selling books, CD's and other "useful" items. They also make the rounds at "conferences" regarding fringe topics like martian ruins, the end of the world, mystery planets, moon landing hoax etc...It's the old "a sucker is born every minute" routine.

Archer17
2004-Mar-18, 03:47 AM
Right now I think McCanney is more dangerous than Nancy as far as fearmongering goes. Nancy has never recovered from her May fiasco last year and is fading. McCanney is more subtle but influences a lot of woowoos. I started a thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9586) about him a while ago but didn't get a bite. People that surf GLP or OSA might recognize some of his hokum.

majic
2004-Mar-18, 12:47 PM
I read through quite a bit of his "news" ...my god the man is disturbed. And also related to the C2C appearently..the name keeps popping up. He is worse than Hoagland! It's incredible.

"August 08,2003 post

GOV TERROR ALERT RED inside information feelers indicate that the US gov is going to try to pull some "terrorist activities" with possible FEMA takeover of the Federal Government in August while everyone is moving and on summer vacation and while your part time pres (KING) is vacationing on daddy's ranch in Texas ... during such a takeover George W would no longer be President - Congress would relinquish all power (as if they had any in the first place) and Ashcroft would become your new leader ... remember that these moves are always related to celestial or numerical events "

Say what??

Gmann
2004-Mar-18, 04:45 PM
Oh yes, McCanney has been a frequent guest on C2C. There was one time recently (3-4 months ago) where he took a shot at the BA 8) by saying, "I was writing papers while the BA 8) was in grade school". That is not saying much since he has achieved only a Masters Degree, and the BA 8) has a Ph.D. I don't say that to belittle a Masters Degree, not at all, but a Ph.D. requires far more dedication and study to earn. His theory on comets is going to be taken to task as soon as that mission (I forget the name) returns to Earth with comet material that it is collecting/going to collect, and the samples are analyzed. Mc canney thinks Px is coming around 2008 or so (last time he said anything about it), once again we will see. From all of the other science I have read since getting involved in this board, I get the impression that he is somewhat mistaken. I do tend to understate things from time to time. :wink:

Swift
2004-Mar-18, 06:24 PM
I only could struggle through the beginning of the site.

the Dirty Snowball Comet theory (that's all it is !!! not proven fact) is the underpinning of all traditional space science and modern astronomical theory
The underpinnning of all modern astronomical theory! I am not a professional astronomer, but I can't see how comets being water is proof of stellar evolution or the Big Bang.

Kaptain K
2004-Mar-18, 07:49 PM
McCanney is not just "... another plasma-accounts-for-everything nutter". He is the plasma-accounts-for-everything nutter! :roll:

Sigma_Orionis
2004-Mar-18, 08:37 PM
...His theory on comets is going to be taken to task as soon as that mission (I forget the name) returns to Earth with comet material that it is collecting/going to collect, and the samples are analyzed.....

That would be Stardust (http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov).

BoredHugeKrill
2004-Mar-19, 12:58 AM
the Dirty Snowball Comet theory (that's all it is !!! not proven fact) is the underpinning of all traditional space science and modern astronomical theory ...

:o

ok, just leaving on one side the general, well, complete lack of actual data or facts to support his assertions, this one has to be a candidate for the Wizard of Oz Award for Most Ridiculous Strawman. In which parallel universe is a theory about the composition of comets "the underpinning of all traditional space science"?

The web page looks to me like a bunch of over-the-top claims with zero supporting facts, interspersed with exhortations to buy his books.

Oh, wait, I think I see how this works...

Krill

Lycus
2004-Mar-19, 01:15 AM
By the way, just in case anyone needs a little background on McCanney, try here:

http://www.planet-x.150m.com/mccanney.html

Lycus
2004-Mar-19, 01:24 AM
Right now I think McCanney is more dangerous than Nancy as far as fearmongering goes. Nancy has never recovered from her May fiasco last year and is fading. McCanney is more subtle but influences a lot of woowoos. I started a thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9586) about him a while ago but didn't get a bite. People that surf GLP or OSA might recognize some of his hokum.

I think that McCanney made off with a lot of people that used to believe in Nancy (case in point: Hazlewood). His rants on the "evil" of NASA and other authoritative scientists appeal emotionally to that crowd. And when you follow McCanney, you don't need to suspend disbelief regarding voices in someone's head, because his teachings are all his own "theories".

Rc2000
2004-Mar-19, 01:34 AM
MY EYES!!!! zzzip 8) ahhhh, better.
Geeeez, but that was rough.

One thing that got me at the start was---

we know the military quickly built such a tower last july (only a few short weeks after the release of my ATLANTIS TO TESLA book on the july 7, 2003 Coast to Coast program ... listen to the C2C archive for that release) near Kanata Canada and when they tapped into the ionosphere (the idiots did not put any control electronics on their tower) the surge blew out the north east electric power grid corridor - the recent Dept of Energy report was another cover up of this mess (sighting the "cause" as due to a tree falling over a power* line in rural Ohio. BOY!!!... Abrahamson must think the public is as dumb as he is!!!)


After that, I just scrolled down and scanned over a few things. What I saw didn't bear closer examination. I think that's one of the deepest pages I've ever seen.
I dropped a rock from the top and I'm still waiting for it to hit bottom.

Rc

2004-Mar-19, 07:33 PM
Oh yes, McCanney has been a frequent guest on C2C. There was one time recently (3-4 months ago) where he took a shot at the BA 8) by saying, "I was writing papers while the BA 8) was in grade school". That is not saying much since he has achieved only a Masters Degree, and the BA 8) has a Ph.D. I don't say that to belittle a Masters Degree, not at all, but a Ph.D. requires far more dedication and study to earn. His theory on comets is going to be taken to task as soon as that mission (I forget the name) returns to Earth with comet material that it is collecting/going to collect, and the samples are analyzed. Mc canney thinks Px is coming around 2008 or so (last time he said anything about it), once again we will see. From all of the other science I have read since getting involved in this board, I get the impression that he is somewhat mistaken. I do tend to understate things from time to time. :wink:

I did a bit more research on James
McCanney. He was in the math department at Cornell for a short while.
He published two papers in mainstream journals,
"Saturn's Sweeper Moons Predicted" in Moon and the Planets Vol. 24,
pp. 349-353; 1981 and
"Continuing Galactic Formation ...", Astrophysics and Space Science
Vol. 74, pp. 57-64; 1981

The first of these has been referenced in other journals twice, once
in a listing of all artices published in 1981 in M&tP and one in a
review article about planetary rings (which does not actually mention
the McCanney paper). The second paper has never been referenced in
any other journal. The impact of a scientists research on the field
is indicated by references in other's publications.

Several quotes from these papers may be of interest:
Footnote in "Saturn's Sweeper ..." This also supports my contention that the solar interior is not one of collapsed hydrogen, but has a large planetary type core ..."

This paper references a paper by T. J. J. See ... I do not know if it is from the era when See was sane or after he went around the bend.

In "Galactic Formation" ... I have proposed a complete theory for comet behavior ... these papers were not accepted for publication as they did not fit into the accepted theoretical scheme of solar system evolution."

Charlie in Dayton
2004-Mar-19, 10:25 PM
I tuned in to Woo2Woo on the way home last night, and without recognizing the guest's voice, inside of 15 seconds pinned it from subject matter only...

Prof McCrackPottery is all up in arms about the approach of the two comets this May-ish, and the 'facts' that their plasma discharges may put the proper charge on one of the planets, and turn it into a comet. I'd like to see that happen to Jupiter...

By the way...if these comets charge the Earth, which polarity of DC electricity won't work any more? :-k

WHarris
2004-Mar-20, 01:04 AM
According to the "Professor" ( :P ), the existence of Sedna disproves NASA's idea that comets are "dirty snowballs", proves that all his theories are correct, and will shake the very foundations of astronomy.


I wonder how he'll react when the Deep Impact probe leaves it's mark.

Gmann
2004-Mar-20, 01:37 AM
McCanney also made the comment that "they" are gong to take over the Hubble for "their" own purposes. An engineer called in to say that the Military has no capability of going up and servicing it, and can't see what the Military would use it for.

Ut
2004-Mar-20, 03:38 AM
Making sure terrorists don't storm the nude beaches of the world, of course.

Wow, everything's a conspiracy, isn't it? I bet even the yellow line they added to the Coke cans.

ToSeek
2004-Mar-20, 04:44 AM
McCanney also made the comment that "they" are gong to take over the Hubble for "their" own purposes. An engineer called in to say that the Military has no capability of going up and servicing it, and can't see what the Military would use it for.

Hubble was based on a spy satellite design adapted for astronomical use, and I think the military have enough spy satellites without needing to borrow Hubble.

Taibak
2004-Mar-20, 06:04 AM
McCanney also made the comment that "they" are gong to take over the Hubble for "their" own purposes. An engineer called in to say that the Military has no capability of going up and servicing it, and can't see what the Military would use it for.

Hubble was based on a spy satellite design adapted for astronomical use, and I think the military have enough spy satellites without needing to borrow Hubble.

In addition, military intelligence prefers to keep both the existence of a spy satellite and its orbit a secret. Given that Hubble is something of a celebrity among satellites and that many civilians - astronomers and technicians - have been involved with it, Hubble would seem to be undesirable here.

Rift
2004-Mar-20, 05:38 PM
Would like to ask McCanney about pictures such as this (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040319.html)

He also seems to have a thing against Phil. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4152)

Also, he keeps referring to it as "NASA's" dirty iceball theory. It was around long before NASA...

Sigma_Orionis
2004-Mar-22, 06:10 PM
.....
Prof McCrackPottery is all up in arms about the approach of the two comets this May-ish, and the 'facts' that their plasma discharges may put the proper charge on one of the planets, and turn it into a comet. I'd like to see that happen to Jupiter...

This guy is saying what? Plasma discharges? from a comet? turning a PLANET into a comet? ok, ok, Professor, step here into the padded room, these nice men dressed in white are gonna make sure everything is fine...... And in case the men in white are not necessary these nice people in blue that carry the sign that says "Bunko Squad" have a few questions to ask you...... :roll:

Charlie, I think it's time for another of your generic mammal refuse references.... :D

ToSeek
2004-Mar-22, 06:18 PM
Would like to ask McCanney about pictures such as this (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040319.html)

He also seems to have a thing against Phil. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4152)

Also, he keeps referring to it as "NASA's" dirty iceball theory. It was around long before NASA...

Yes, but it would have been discredited long ago if it weren't for NASA's blackmailing all the astronomers.... :roll:

Charlie in Dayton
2004-Mar-23, 05:16 AM
Charlie, I think it's time for another of your generic mammal refuse references.... :D

He's too much of a 'gimme'...I'll leave him for target practice for the young'uns...

JTRIV
2004-Mar-23, 10:12 PM
Hi All,

>McCanney is not just "... another plasma-accounts-for-everything
>nutter". He is the plasma-accounts-for-everything nutter!

Not quite, the Electric Universe Theory was around before McCanney, however they are alike in many ways. Like the founders of the EUT, McCanney is a Velikovskian and developed his theory to come up with an alternative physics that allowed Venus to move as Velikovsky said it did.

McCanney probably has more of a following than Zetatalk right now. He was quick to attack Nancy at just the right time, saying her failed predictions were obviously NASA sponsored disinfo. Many people fell for his rebel scientist against the establishment bit and switched to his Planet X is a comet that grows into a planet theory.

I listened to his radio show last week to learn how Sedna proved comets were not dirty snowballs.... and all I got was a headache. He also claims that if the dirty snowball theory were true Europa would have a tail! Don't ask me... it doesn't make any sense.

His 1981 ""Continuing Galactic Formation " paper is pretty amusing. In it he claims the galactic core spits out a new star about once per year and the galaxy is much younger then science thinks it is. Yes, I'm serious, that's what it says. :lol:

The good thing is that Mr. McCanney's claims are so bad they are easy to refute, just as the engineer did on C2C in regards to his Hubble will be stolen rant.

Jim

2004-Mar-23, 10:58 PM
Hi All,

>McCanney is not just "... another plasma-accounts-for-everything
>nutter". He is the plasma-accounts-for-everything nutter!

Not quite, the Electric Universe Theory was around before McCanney, however they are alike in many ways. Like the founders of the EUT, McCanney is a Velikovskian and developed his theory to come up with an alternative physics that allowed Venus to move as Velikovsky said it did.

McCanney probably has more of a following than Zetatalk right now. He was quick to attack Nancy at just the right time, saying her failed predictions were obviously NASA sponsored disinfo. Many people fell for his rebel scientist against the establishment bit and switched to his Planet X is a comet that grows into a planet theory.

I listened to his radio show last week to learn how Sedna proved comets were not dirty snowballs.... and all I got was a headache. He also claims that if the dirty snowball theory were true Europa would have a tail! Don't ask me... it doesn't make any sense.

His 1981 ""Continuing Galactic Formation " paper is pretty amusing. In it he claims the galactic core spits out a new star about once per year and the galaxy is much younger then science thinks it is. Yes, I'm serious, that's what it says. :lol:

The good thing is that Mr. McCanney's claims are so bad they are easy to refute, just as the engineer did on C2C in regards to his Hubble will be stolen rant.

Jim

I don't know how to reference a posting in another thread but see Against the Mainstream|McCanney's Comets where I post links to his only two papers published in refereed journals (and the referees must have been asleep to pass even those two). Interestingly he refers to a paper by Thomas Jefferson Jackson See, a once fairly competant astronomer who became a nut case and an adherant of theories of electric fields influencing orbits. T J J See stories are almost as interesting as Gaposhkin tales.

Edited to provide the link ... thanks Lycus
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=227745&highlight=#227745

Lycus
2004-Mar-24, 03:19 AM
Here ya go: IMO's post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=227745&highlight=#227745)