|
Post by paul on Feb 28, 2012 13:59:12 GMT 9.5
He wrote articles:
- Are the Moon's Scars Only Three Thousand Years Old? - When Was the Lunar Surface Last Molten?
It seems that he was on the same track.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 28, 2012 14:05:33 GMT 9.5
You can wait for it, it isn't a competition. It isn't a matter of belief either, it is critically reviewing the evidence available and either accepting or rejecting it. Nothing more. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis The reference section of the wiki page may be shed some light on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Feb 28, 2012 14:11:58 GMT 9.5
I prefer to avoid the acceptance/rejection dichotomy and live with ambiguity. That way I avoid both Type I and Type II errors.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 28, 2012 14:50:42 GMT 9.5
If you would like we could delve into Bayesian statistical analysis but that would require more than reading. A type I error would be reject a null hypothesis that was actually true. Type II would be would be failiing to reject the null hypothesis when it is indeed false. This is a matter of alpha and beta. Alpha would represent the chance of a type I error and beta would represent the chance of a type II error. 1-alpha is the chance for a correct decision and 1-beta represents the power, or the ability of a particular experiment to detect an effect if it is indeed there.
Brother, you do engage in the acceptance/rejection dichotomy. Everybody does. It is good to use controls to that our own decision-maing heuristics or biases don't influence our ultimate decisions. The only type III error that I know of is the failure to decide.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Feb 28, 2012 15:06:11 GMT 9.5
One of the skills of an administrator is knowing when to decide. The origin of the Moon is not something I need to decide at present and it is fun to investigate - and to count the paired craters.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 28, 2012 15:40:19 GMT 9.5
Fun is cool, and I enjoy fun. Counting paired craters could be cool but I am certain that anyone can draw a line between two points. I think that might actually refer to the definition of a line. In any case, there is evidence to be examined which is unfortunatly more boring than speculation. I was hoping for something else. Other evidence would have to have strength behind it.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Feb 28, 2012 15:52:49 GMT 9.5
..Counting paired craters could be cool but I am certain that anyone can draw a line between two points. .. Is that a straw man?
|
|
|
Post by Euclid on Feb 28, 2012 19:04:40 GMT 9.5
As I recall mathematical proofs start with assumptions and apply rules of logic to expose the implications of the assumptions These assumptions and their implications have enabled us to erect towering cathedrals and to navigate the solar system.
|
|
|
Post by scarecrow on Feb 28, 2012 19:08:52 GMT 9.5
..Counting paired craters could be cool but I am certain that anyone can draw a line between two points. .. Is that a straw man? It is a self-evident fact.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Feb 28, 2012 23:20:12 GMT 9.5
..Counting paired craters could be cool but I am certain that anyone can draw a line between two points. .. Is that a straw man? No sir, it is not a straw man. Anyone could count paired craters, and any craters could be considered paired. There are wonderful things to study.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Feb 29, 2012 8:45:04 GMT 9.5
As I recall mathematical proofs start with assumptions and apply rules of logic to expose the implications of the assumptions These assumptions and their implications have enabled us to erect towering cathedrals and to navigate the solar system. To what purpose? Cathedrals were supposed to be places where man communicates with God. When was the last time you (the reader) talked to God, cathedral or otherwise? The Solar System is inhospitable, uninhabitable 'and no other intelligences live out there' - or so many believe. On that basis, sounds like a giant waste of time, money and effort.
|
|
|
Post by Euclid on Mar 2, 2012 4:42:29 GMT 9.5
These assumptions and their implications have enabled us to erect towering cathedrals and to navigate the solar system. To what purpose? Cathedrals were supposed to be places where man communicates with God. When was the last time you (the reader) talked to God, cathedral or otherwise? The Solar System is inhospitable, uninhabitable 'and no other intelligences live out there' - or so many believe. On that basis, sounds like a giant waste of time, money and effort. As usual you have missed the point. The assumptions work.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Mar 2, 2012 7:21:51 GMT 9.5
Those assumptions also work in worlds invisible to the physical eye.
One can truly build temples, or cathedrals on other planes, and in truth navigate the subtle body around the Universe. Even the USA military are onto that one... though the Russians have always excelled in that area.
But as I said... what is the use of these skills if no-one practices them?
Are you willing to assume that you are more than the physical body and then go from there?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Mar 2, 2012 7:54:40 GMT 9.5
If we assume that we are spirit first, which then clothes itself in 'coats of skin', may we logically conclude that when the 'coats of skin' decay that the spirit remains?
And Joseph's coat of many colours? The Light body?
(Joseph's father was Jacob, of Ladder fame, upon which the 'angels' of God descended and ascended - The Jewish Biblical philosopher Philo (d. ca. 50 CE) presents his allegorical interpretation of the ladder in the first book of his De somniis. There he gives four interpretations, which are not mutually exclusive: The first one being the angels represent souls descending to and ascending from bodies (some consider this to be Philo's clearest reference to the doctrine of reincarnation).
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Mar 2, 2012 7:56:40 GMT 9.5
.... and the cow jumped over the moon .... back to topic
|
|
|
Post by paul on Mar 17, 2012 7:35:37 GMT 9.5
The orbit of the Moon around the Earth is almost perfectly circular. This makes it most unlikely that the Earth captured the Moon as it went past. Such an event would have produced an elliptical orbit
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 17, 2012 7:38:13 GMT 9.5
Strong statement. Care to defend it or provide evidence? What does it hurt that the natural world is just natural? Sure there is no need for a leprechaun with magic stick to make the moon move around which might remove some prose from the discussion but it doesn't injure reality.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Mar 17, 2012 7:46:44 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by paul on Mar 17, 2012 8:04:46 GMT 9.5
Strong statement. Care to defend it or provide evidence?... Some contemplation of a Moon-sized object passing the Earth at perhaps 25 km per second might indicate that the conservation of momentum prevents the possibility of a circular orbit. "Isaac Asimov, stated, "It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible." www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_16.htmSpace craft returning to Earth can deal with the problem of excess momentum both by firing retro-rockets to slow them down and then using the atmosphere as a braking system. The latter was not available to the Moon.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 18, 2012 3:31:07 GMT 9.5
The moon wasn't captured.
|
|