You can reveal yourself here, first. I use a handle for the sake of ANONYMITY, anon. Don't make demands that violate the very spirit of participation in this environment. Nothing "fantastic" about my claim, since it is true---and far from rare. (Which continues to be my clue that you don't know what you are talking about.)
Give a good study to the science of statistical physics and (e.g.) the kinetic theory of gases for an education on the randomness inherent at the atomic level.
I see you are an "apple falls" gravity expert. At the 3-year-old level. The point was whether Musk earned his creds or was a fake. The evidence is that he is not a fake in regard to rocketry. Nor were the Soviets, for that matter. You need to distinguish between talent and morals.
Sin? Mostly when emotion bypasses cognition, I would say. Thoughtlessness. Callousness. Neglect. Foolishness. Dishonesty.
You made the claims many months ago to which then you refused to provide any evidence of your credentials. This is deja vu for me. The 'gravitic expert' exercise was to demonstrate the hubris in claiming any credentials on GAW. Without evidence, it's really meaningless.
My point was we're all equal here at GAW.
The following will be the only time I'll ever state this and will be the exception contrary to my steadfast rule to always treat others as equals.... Because they are. I really enjoy other people's thoughts no matter what their academic history is. I've met some pretty amazing intelligent people throughout my life. Many of which had no academic degrees, but were 'blue collar' individuals instead. For me, I spent many years in the military as a missile system expert. I have several years of education and training in this area. I also have a degree in engineering and a masters degree. I'm a lifelong Tau Beta Pi honorary member. I worked in factory automation and robotics and also specialized in material science in shape memory materials. I designed the first prototypes using materials that are now widely used throughout the medical industry. Okay there it is. I could go on because there's almost 50 years of learning, technical experience, teaching, and now retirement. IMHO, it's all meaningless here because to me it is the thoughts of any individual posting that is valuable. I honor that. Graham's Hierarchy of Argument is aiming at the top of the pyramid and refuting the central point, to which I originally called into question Elon Musk's character. It's not about his rocketry. It's his morality that I question.
Yes, I know about internet egalitarianism---where dunderheads think they are peers with people who actually know the subject matter. I run into this all the time on climate criticism forums.
I like that you put your credentials out there (anonymously, of course). And I can agree with your sentiments. But you have forgotten that your original beef with Musk was that he was "fake," and that was what I was responding to. I take no issue with his morals, but he is no fake when it comes to rocketry.
Indeed he is fake in the context of being IMHO a great deceiver. It's another way of stating he is a fake. This is why I'm expounding on his moral decadence. My interpretation of Elon was that he really was 'born' into these positions as a result of family ties to secret societies. You seem to have forgotten the the links I provided earlier. Recall Miles Mattis'--"I don't Believe in Musk". I'm assuming you didn't read this expose because you've already made up your mind in being an advocate of this deceiver. Some people even suggest that Elon Musk,... wait for it, will usher in the Beast system. The Satanism involvement surrounding him suggests perhaps these people might be on to 'something'.
I'm not warm and fuzzy about Elon Musk for the reason I mentioned earlier. I've outlined this by always emphasizing its my humble opinion. We have to honor opposing polemics even when they are indeed opinions. In stating this, I respect your perspective. I just don't agree with it as you with my position.
Okay, I looked at the Miles Mattis material. It is nothing but supposition and challenge questions. No actual evidence of anything. I looked at the Mike Griffin issue, and all you can really find about Mike Griffin is that he has the academic background to have spent virtually all of his career in space technology. The past employment by In-Q-Tel has no significance; it is a presupposition that "CIA corrupts everything it touches." You can suppose...but suppose what? No meat. The movie "The Martian" was based on a 2011 debut novel by Andy Weir. The ideas for a durable artificial ecosystem have been around since the 1960s. The reason that NASA contracted in 2012 for private delivery of cargo to the International Space Station was because Shuttle operation was terminated in 2011. What else was NASA supposed to do? He makes a big issue of Musk being involved in 2002 in an effort to purchase surplus Soviet strategic missiles for space launchers. Nothing sinister about that. The Boeing Company became partner in Sea Launch which used surplus- and new-production ex-Soviet Zenit launch vehicles for satellite launches. There were 36 launches from 1999 to 2014. The rest of the material became a morass of self-glorification, aspersions against prominent scientists, crank theories of nuclear physics, and blanket assumptions that space-related information is false. I worked in the field, and his assumptions are ludicrous.
I have passed over many secondary issues because they are meaningless and a waste of time to detail.
There is more evidence in this article that Miles Mattis is fake, than anything substantial against Musk. You are leaning on a weak reed---but hey, you know how to pick them. A total nothingburger.
You can reveal yourself here, first. I use a handle for the sake of ANONYMITY, anon. Don't make demands that violate the very spirit of participation in this environment. Nothing "fantastic" about my claim, since it is true---and far from rare. (Which continues to be my clue that you don't know what you are talking about.)
Give a good study to the science of statistical physics and (e.g.) the kinetic theory of gases for an education on the randomness inherent at the atomic level.
I see you are an "apple falls" gravity expert. At the 3-year-old level. The point was whether Musk earned his creds or was a fake. The evidence is that he is not a fake in regard to rocketry. Nor were the Soviets, for that matter. You need to distinguish between talent and morals.
Sin? Mostly when emotion bypasses cognition, I would say. Thoughtlessness. Callousness. Neglect. Foolishness. Dishonesty.
You made the claims many months ago to which then you refused to provide any evidence of your credentials. This is deja vu for me. The 'gravitic expert' exercise was to demonstrate the hubris in claiming any credentials on GAW. Without evidence, it's really meaningless.
My point was we're all equal here at GAW.
The following will be the only time I'll ever state this and will be the exception contrary to my steadfast rule to always treat others as equals.... Because they are. I really enjoy other people's thoughts no matter what their academic history is. I've met some pretty amazing intelligent people throughout my life. Many of which had no academic degrees, but were 'blue collar' individuals instead. For me, I spent many years in the military as a missile system expert. I have several years of education and training in this area. I also have a degree in engineering and a masters degree. I'm a lifelong Tau Beta Pi honorary member. I worked in factory automation and robotics and also specialized in material science in shape memory materials. I designed the first prototypes using materials that are now widely used throughout the medical industry. Okay there it is. I could go on because there's almost 50 years of learning, technical experience, teaching, and now retirement. IMHO, it's all meaningless here because to me it is the thoughts of any individual posting that is valuable. I honor that. Graham's Hierarchy of Argument is aiming at the top of the pyramid and refuting the central point, to which I originally called into question Elon Musk's character. It's not about his rocketry. It's his morality that I question.
Yes, I know about internet egalitarianism---where dunderheads think they are peers with people who actually know the subject matter. I run into this all the time on climate criticism forums.
I like that you put your credentials out there (anonymously, of course). And I can agree with your sentiments. But you have forgotten that your original beef with Musk was that he was "fake," and that was what I was responding to. I take no issue with his morals, but he is no fake when it comes to rocketry.
Indeed he is fake in the context of being IMHO a great deceiver. It's another way of stating he is a fake. This is why I'm expounding on his moral decadence. My interpretation of Elon was that he really was 'born' into these positions as a result of family ties to secret societies. You seem to have forgotten the the links I provided earlier. Recall Miles Mattis'--"I don't Believe in Musk". I'm assuming you didn't read this expose because you've already made up your mind in being an advocate of this deceiver. Some people even suggest that Elon Musk,... wait for it, will usher in the Beast system. The Satanism involvement surrounding him suggests perhaps these people might be on to 'something'.
I'm not warm and fuzzy about Elon Musk for the reason I mentioned earlier. I've outlined this by always emphasizing its my humble opinion. We have to honor opposing polemics even when they are indeed opinions. In stating this, I respect your perspective. I just don't agree with it as you with my position.
Okay, I looked at the Miles Mattis material. It is nothing but supposition and challenge questions. No actual evidence of anything. I looked at the Mike Griffin issue, and all you can really find about Mike Griffin is that he has the academic background to have spent virtually all of his career in space technology. The past employment by In-Q-Tel has no significance; it is a presupposition that "CIA corrupts everything it touches." You can suppose...but suppose what? No meat. The movie "The Martian" was based on a 2011 debut novel by Andy Weir. The ideas for a durable artificial ecosystem have been around since the 1960s. The reason that NASA contracted in 2012 for private delivery of cargo to the International Space Station was because Shuttle operation was terminated in 2011. What else was NASA supposed to do? He makes a big issue of Musk being involved in 2002 in an effort to purchase surplus Soviet strategic missiles for space launchers. Nothing sinister about that. The Boeing Company became partner in Sea Launch which used surplus- and new-production ex-Soviet Zenit launch vehicles for satellite launches. There were 36 launches from 1999 to 2014. The rest of the material became a morass of self-glorification, aspersions against prominent scientists, crank theories of nuclear physics, and blanket assumptions that space-related information is false. I worked in the field, and his assumptions are ludicrous.
I have passed over many secondary issues because they are meaningless and a waste of time to detail.
There is more evidence in this article that Miles Mattis is fake, than anything substantial against Musk. You are leaning on a weak reed---but hey, you know how to pick them. A total nothingburger.