Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Go to: Forum HomeBoardNew Topic

Pages: 12345...LastNext
Current Page: 1 of 7
Results 1 - 30 of 184
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
I did. And I didn't intentionally misunderstand it as you did.
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
I don't think there are any worries about that. The master of cop-outs has stroke again: Now he cops out even before he is driven to a corner.
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
Genesis Veracity wrote: > Well, Darwinism is a cult. > Darwinism doesn't exist anymore than Newtonism or Einsteinism. Strawman argument.
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
No, I accepted that if your scenario was true, that would happen. I don't have to answer questions about your scenario, you do. Now, do.
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
Genesis Veracity wrote: > Don't you think that thousands of volcanos greatly increased > the C12 concentration in the atmosphere? When this actually > occured is the question. I don't think thousands of volcanos erupted in the same era, stop answering questions with questions. > If not cooler summers and warmer winters, what do you think > resulted from dense cloud-cover, wa
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
> Of course, during the Ice Age, it was cooler in the summer, and > warmer in the winter, because of the dense cloud-cover. Of course...??? > If you think that the C12 from thousands of volcanos did not > greatly affect the C14/C12 ratio in the Ice Age atmosphere, > then you'll have to ask the conventionals how they factor the > supposed C12 concentration in the atmosphere
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
So you are saying you have no idea, but just need to try to rebut things with something? Surely if you think you can scientifically challenge C14 you have calculated how much CO2 comes from those 'thousand of volcanos', and can show that it matches with the dates given by C14 method. You can probably also show what this amount of CO2 does to the atmosphere, and how it is possible to sustain lif
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
Genesis Veracity wrote: > But the conventionals assume that the Ice Age was over way > before 2000 B.C., so "if" the Ice Age actually ended circa 1500 > B.C., then their presumption about little volcanics circa 2000 > B.C. skews their interpretations of the data. Sure. Now, answer the question.
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
Genesis Veracity wrote: > During the Ice Age, much more CO2 (of C12 molecules) from many > then active volcanoes diluted, so to speak, the C14 in the > atmosphere. Ok, let's start with this. How much more of CO2 do you think there was in the atmosphere, and you think this throws the C14 dating of by how much? We are able to check the ancient CO2 levels, you know.
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
I happen to be a physicist, so I would be interested to hear your scientific rebuttal of C14-dating. You don't have to be too technical if you don't want to, just tell what is the principal problem with it.
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
We don't have trees surviving from the ice age. You can try and twist the facts as much as you like, but that won't change them, so I really don't see any point in what you are doing.
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
You can't make testable predictions about the mindset of a creator anymore than you can read my mind without knowing me, and being able to exchange thoughts with me. Also, regarding for example Punctuated Equilibria, see: "PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
Hi Nico, Sorry if I was being disencouraging. :) It just is a bit difficult to explain how to solve differential equations on a messageboard like this, because you have to be able to "see" what kind of wave-function would fit into the equation. If you have access to a decent library and are interested in learning the basics about how they are dealt with, see for example Arfken&We
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
> One chapter introduces Schrödingers equation. As an example he > gives a restricted form appropriate for one-dimensional motion. > > -A.psi(x) + V(x).psi(x) = E.psi(x) > > -A stands for a differential term -(h^2.d^2) / 8.PI^2.m.d.x^2 > x stands for some point in space-time. > The wave-function-terms (psi(x)) on both sides of the > equal-sign cancel each other out
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
> Sure, another thread. By the way, coudn't find it? It's common > knowledge. I don't know what would be so hard about posting a > number. It is 10 to the 'something'. Shall I post a new thread > and ask the question again? Or save me the trouble and tell me > you don't know the answer or tell me you are just not > interested in discussing it. That would be better than me > a
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
> Your attempt to try to position yourself as a superior > intellect :D
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
Why am I not 'allowed' to apply a particular > calculation to particular situation in a fashion that does not > create a paradox? Because it is known to give you the wrong answer. But you are allowed to use it, if you want to be wrong. > That's what I'm after. :) Also, they have 'stood the test of > time' in large part due to politics. An excellent work to see > how this happe
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
> This is a spin on what you originally said. :( I said in another post that it's the weaker force that counts. I didn't think it was necessary to repeat it, but perhaps I should have, since it was such a long thread. When you switch the other partipant in the collision from bigger that you to smaller than you, there will be a spin. > But anyways, I got from your view that you thought
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
Hi Avry, Let me offer my view of what has happened: I entered the discussion while quick-reading through posts made in my months absence from the board because you were insulting Mr. Bowles, though he was right from the beginning. This resulted in you insulting me. I asked you to not make personal remarks, and for that you answered with repeatedly calling my views idiotic and insane. I maked
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
> > 1. "Any equation using n dimensions above 3 is irrelevant to > our universe." > > 2. "Electromagnetism value is an expressive state of gravity." > > 3. "The particulate gravitational sum of a system is equal to > the gravitational range." I cannot comment on the data since you haven't presented it (it's up to you to provide the data
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
Ok, once more, and still a little simpler. Let's make the buddies a little faster, say 5m/s for both (easier with the dimensions). Scenario 1 with the buddies, scenario 2 with the event horizons: Scenario 1, non relativistic calculation: w=u+v = 5m/s + 5m/s = 10 m/s Scenario 1, relativisic calculation: w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) = (10 m/s)/(1+25/(3*10^8)^2 = 10m/s. Conclusion: You are allowed to
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
> Comparing mass? Well then consider comparing the damage of a > nerf sponge hitting me at 2mph to a plane hitting me at 2mph. > And you think it is the same damage?? No, the scenario is reversed, because you know become the stronger force. Sponge hitting you and sponge hitting the plane will create a collision with an equal energy, if the speeds are equal. Regards, Tommi
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
:) Just back from the gym, time to answer some of the other questions on this thread.
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
Yep, I noticed. :) But thanks for the "expansion" of what I said, then. Regards, Tommi
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
Hi Michael, Thanks for the correction. I was only thinking about the particle-mode. Regards, Tommi
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
> Or change the speeds of each vehicle like I did in my previous > example. I don't care what speeds you choose, make them random. > Bowles - and now _you_ (which I find surprising) - think that > if you walk at 2mph into a 747 travelling at 600mph, you will > only incur the forces of your own speed of 2mph. Do either of > you have any idea how insane/idiotic you sound right >
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
> All this shows is that FTL can 't be observed by the observer. > However, FTL can and does occur as per my example. The two > points moving away from each other cannot observe the speed of > the other, but they are moving 2c from each other. Let's see once more what universally agreed textbook science has to say about it. A and B the event-horizons, C the point in the middle. u=
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
Hi Michael, > 'Relative' being the key word, doesn't Einstein's theory of > Special Relativity refer to the trajectile's movement as > observed from a stationary frame of reference? In Classical Mechanichs, stationary frame of reference is often crucial for understanding a problem. Like I said in the collision-subthread, relative speeds are unimportant. Consider this example: I sta
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
Hi WG, Exactly. Newton's third law makes the stationary wall a sort of a "dynamical mirror". No matter what with or how hard you hit it, it will hit you back in exactly the same way. Good idea about placing a mirror on the surface of the wall. It's easier to understand things when you can see them. :) Regards, Tommi
Forum: Science & Space
14 years ago
Tommi Huhtamaki
> OK - heres a question Tommi. > > What happens if two particles of light hit each other at an > effective speed of 400km? (Yes I'm aware light can be perceived > as a wave but also as a particle). Hi Fuzzy, Light can only travel at the speed of light (~3*10^8m/s or 300000 km/s). And I've never seen it suggested that photons would interact with each other. I'm not sure, thoug
Forum: Science & Space
Pages: 12345...LastNext
Current Page: 1 of 7