From: bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour)
Subject: Re: Miscalculation
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:53:52 GMT

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:


>[Stan Friesen]
>^Yep, the definition of a liar is one who states something known to be false.
>^When you repost verbatim material that has been shown to be incorrect you are
>^indeed being a liar (since you have been given every opportunity to discover
>^that what you are saying is false).  To avoid this you must either correct the
>^errors or provide acceptible evidence that your material is not in error.
> 
>In other words, "Either you come to your senses and recognize the
>inherent superiority of our jaded arguments, or you're a liar!"

>-- 
>Ted Holden
>HTE

What a paranoid! I didn't read anything like that in Stan's words, Ted.
He simply said that if you make such radical claims, you need proof.
Your "proof" has been shown to have more holes than Swiss Cheese.
When asked, you say something like, 'I don't have to have things
worked out to the n'th degree to have a better theory than the
standard bullshit'. So, give us real answers. The kind with data
and math and verifiable experimetal results and all that (not references
to myth) to counter these things:

1) How does the Earth orbit *any* body, close enough to have a significant
   effect on Earth's felt effect of gravity, without having Earth
   ripped to Bite-Sized-Planet Bits (tm)?  (Hint: Tell us how much you
   need the "felt effect" to be reduced for your theory to work.
   Tell us which body you propose Earth orbited. Tell us your 
   assumptions as to the mass of that body. Calculate the orbit
   distance required to acheive the gravity reduction. Calculate
   the tidal force applied to the Earth. Describe the physical
   properties of the Earth in the context of the tidal force
   applied, and how the Earth withstood these forces.)

2) How, with some pole always pointed at the star in #1, do you account
   for the problems associated with conservation of angular momentum?
   (Other posters have described this problem in detail)

3) Assuming you get by 1 & 2, what would the temperature be at the
   solar pole in this configuration?

4) And why didn't that extra gravity pull the waters over the solar pole?

5) Where did this earlier system exist relative to our current system?
   How far did we travel from our earlier sun, to our present sun?
   How long did that take? What was the effect on climate and
   temperature on Earth during the transition?

6) What force caused the earlier system to break up and form our
   current configuration? What effects of that force should we be
   able to look for and observe today? A force large enough to
   alter a star system, should leave an observable mark (and I don't
   count "our current orbit" as a sign).

7) If Saturn *was* a star, what extinguished it? Explain the flaws in
   current astrophysics which show that Saturn does not possess enough
   mass to be a star, or explain where the mass went when Saturn
   ceased to be a star.


No hand waving allowed here Ted. You have said that science can explain
current events with little difficulty. You also have said that the
basic laws of physics don't change over time. Therefore, show us that
you understand those laws and give us some proof that these claims of
yours are not falsifiable with any of the above "problems" (or any of
the many, many, more "problems" that us gang of establishment lackeys
have been coerced into believing, to protect our hero...

(Trumpet Fanfare please!) Carl Sagan!

-Burch Seymour-