PDA

View Full Version : Wow, six out of the top eight topics locked!



MAPNUT
2011-May-12, 02:27 PM
Somebody must be getting dangerously close to the truth!

I'm just kidding, I realize it's because the Baut Forum is running short of capital letters and exclamation points.

Swift
2011-May-12, 03:08 PM
Somebody must be getting dangerously close to the truth!

I'm just kidding, I realize it's because the Baut Forum is running short of capital letters and exclamation points.
I asked them to rush the shipment, but with 24/7 cable news channels, demand is exceeding supply.

NEOWatcher
2011-May-12, 03:14 PM
So there is a low supply. I just thought my quota was getting low because I'm heading toward the wrong list.

moonfunk
2011-May-12, 05:52 PM
Starting a thread in the CT forum becomes a full time job. First there is the inexplicable, "Direct Question"! Anyone who starts a CT thread is inundated with the, "Direct Question" confrontation which does not work both ways. So the author either answers the mandatory, "Direct Question" or is cited with an infarction (misspelled purposely from this point forward).

Also contributing to the hesitation of authoring a CT thread is the unambitious “Thread Jumper.” They of course use the "Direct Question" requirement without reading the entire thread. The author is now confronted with a "Direct Question" usually already addressed in the thread but once again because of some "Direct Question" rule, he/she is obligated to answer it.

Next is the “Cite your study/reference/case”. No matter how accredited a reference may be, there will be those who will dispute it and of course once again use the ad nauseum, “Direct Question” rule again and again and again…infinity.

A CT author is in the minority so it just becomes too burdensome to author a CT thread, comply with all the requirements and not become frustrated.

kamaz
2011-May-12, 05:59 PM
Rejoince, for I have just posted a new thread!



Also contributing to the hesitation of authoring a CT thread is the unambitious “Thread Jumper.” They of course use the "Direct Question" requirement without reading the entire thread. The author is now confronted with a "Direct Question" usually already addressed in the thread but once again because of some "Direct Question" rule, he/she is obligated to answer it.

What's the problem with saying "Already answered"?

R.A.F.
2011-May-12, 06:00 PM
Anyone who starts a CT thread is inundated with the, "Direct Question" confrontation which does not work both ways.

Is there something about the burden of proof that you don't understand?

Of course it can't "work both ways".

moonfunk
2011-May-12, 06:04 PM
Case in point, and this is NOT a topic to debate:
NASA defines "Atmosphere" as extending 372 miles above the earth. This is my reference for declaring man has never been in "Space", sans the purported Apollo missions. When I bring this up, someone ALWAYS debates the definition which is a direct link to NASA.

This is frustration Numero Uno in starting a CT thread.

Gillianren
2011-May-12, 06:06 PM
Is NASA the be-all and end-all of definitions?

Noclevername
2011-May-12, 06:08 PM
"Space" and "Atmosphere" overlap. That overlap is because the atmosphere has no sharply defined upper boundaries. It just thins out from near-vacuum into nearer vacuum.

kamaz
2011-May-12, 06:14 PM
Most people believe that space starts 100km above the surface.

While you want to say that nobody has been outside LEO, you are effectively saying that nobody has been in space, including being in LEO. The latter statement is patently false, regardless of what one thinks about Apollo.

NEOWatcher
2011-May-12, 06:14 PM
Case in point, and this is NOT a topic to debate:
Unfortunately, it's still an unproven statement.

NASA defines "Atmosphere" as extending 372 miles above the earth. This is my reference for declaring man has never been in "Space", sans the purported Apollo missions. When I bring this up, someone ALWAYS debates the definition which is a direct link to NASA.
Who says the thermosphere doesn't extend into space?

Garrison
2011-May-12, 06:20 PM
Case in point, and this is NOT a topic to debate:
NASA defines "Atmosphere" as extending 372 miles above the earth. This is my reference for declaring man has never been in "Space", sans the purported Apollo missions. When I bring this up, someone ALWAYS debates the definition which is a direct link to NASA.

This is frustration Numero Uno in starting a CT thread.

I suppose it is frustrating that people won't simply accept that you want rewrite the definition of space to suit your personal whim, and of course even if they were to do so, leaving aside your assertion about Apollo for the moment, you are still wrong. Here's a quote from a page on John Young (http://www.johnwyoung.com/gt10/31ago.htm)(my bold):


The combined maneuvering of Gemini/Agena X was the first time in spaceflight history that a manned spacecraft has accomplished orbital maneuvering through power supplied by a second vehicle, setting thereby a new manned spaceflight altitude record of 413 nm. Gemini X is also the first mission to have two periods of extravehicular activity. Pilot Michael Collins twice opened the hatch to the hard vacuum of space to further explore manned operations outside the spacecraft and to conduct experiments.

R.A.F.
2011-May-12, 06:24 PM
While you want to say that nobody has been outside LEO, you are effectively saying that nobody has been in space, including being in LEO.

Is this what you are claiming, Moonfunk??

...or perhaps I should rephrase...what exactly are you claimng, Moonfunk??

NEOWatcher
2011-May-12, 06:26 PM
Actually; before that particular thread was closed, I did look through NASA's site for a definition of what they call "space". I couldn't find it, even though I found close to a dozen different glossaries.

So; in absence of a definition by the National Aeronautics and Space administration, the lack of a direct relationship between atmosphere and space, and the official naming of the Space Transportation System, the Hubble Space Telescope, and the International Space Station (and most likely more than I can think of), I think it's pretty clear that NASA is officially declaring thier operations to be in space.

moonfunk
2011-May-12, 06:27 PM
I never said where space started, I quoted NASA's definition of where the Atmosphere extends.

The retorts to that post are the pudding in the proof why CT threads are too burdensome to author.

Garrison
2011-May-12, 06:28 PM
Oh and of course that record was topped by Gemini 11 (http://www.californiasciencecenter.org/Exhibits/AirAndSpace/HumansInSpace/Gemini11/Gemini11.php):


...took astronauts Dick Gordon and Pete Conrad into space, setting an altitude record of 1,400 kilometers (850 miles).

This is the problem Moonfunk. Your value for the height of the atmosphere from NASA may be perfectly correct and unimpeachable but is simply inadequate to make your argument stand up. Perhaps a little more care in fact checking would make running a CT thread less burdensome?

R.A.F.
2011-May-12, 06:30 PM
The retorts to that post are the pudding in the proof why CT threads are too burdensome to author.

Lets be clear here...what you are saying is that it's too burdensome for you.

Others seem to handle that "burden" just fine.

Cobra1597
2011-May-12, 06:32 PM
Case in point, and this is NOT a topic to debate:
NASA defines "Atmosphere" as extending 372 miles above the earth. This is my reference for declaring man has never been in "Space", sans the purported Apollo missions. When I bring this up, someone ALWAYS debates the definition which is a direct link to NASA.

This is frustration Numero Uno in starting a CT thread.

Do you have an official definition of spaceflight that is "flight outside all of the atmosphere"?

Can you prove to me that not a single atmospheric molecule is being held by gravity at any altitude above 372 miles?

The first of those is most important, since your position is entirely dependent upon it.

Garrison
2011-May-12, 06:32 PM
I never said where space started, I quoted NASA's definition of where the Atmosphere extends.

The retorts to that post are the pudding in the proof why CT threads are too burdensome to author.

This is what you said:


NASA defines "Atmosphere" as extending 372 miles above the earth. This is my reference for declaring man has never been in "Space"

Unless you are adding Gemini 10 and 11 to the list of things you dispute do you accept your statement is wrong? And I'm going to invoke rule 13 for that question.

PetersCreek
2011-May-12, 06:32 PM
The discussion of moonfunk's pet peeve about the definintion of space is off-topic to this thread. If he wishes to defend his position, he han can do so in his own thread.

R.A.F.
2011-May-12, 06:34 PM
850 miles...does that meet your criteria for being "in space", moonfunk.

If not, why not??

Swift
2011-May-12, 06:37 PM
Case in point, and this is NOT a topic to debate:
NASA defines "Atmosphere" as extending 372 miles above the earth. This is my reference for declaring man has never been in "Space", sans the purported Apollo missions. When I bring this up, someone ALWAYS debates the definition which is a direct link to NASA.

This is frustration Numero Uno in starting a CT thread.
Apparently you find it too much of a burden to start your own thread on this topic (which is what you've been told several times), but an acceptable burden to hijack another thread on it (even if it is only a joke thread).

The tag team of Swift and Peterscreek have infracted moonfunk for this and closed the thread.

moonfunk - One more time - If you want to discss NASA's definition of space or the "purported Apollo missions", start your own thread. If you keep hijacking other threads, you will keep getting infracted.