Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Review of RCH/C2C 21st Sept

       Richard Hoagland was vouchsafed about ten minutes in Hour 1 to comment on the re-accretion theory of Phobos that was expounded in Rome yesterday. He also, naturally, seized the occasion to promote the upcoming Transformation Conference, hoping to snag a few more punters at $500 a head.

       Skipping the question of what happened to the dramatic announcement he'd predicted just two weeks ago, he contented himself by assuring us that "They're going to be driven inexorably toward the fact that Phobos is artificial, because their theory JUST WON'T WORK."

       And why does he say re-accretion won't work? Because, he claimed, Phobos is already threatening to tear itself apart due to tidal forces. "You can't have accretion in a body that's dissociating," he stated (perhaps not exactly verbatim, but close.) In passing, we might raise an eyebrow since his use of the term dissociating blows his whole theory that this is a constructed body — dissociation essentially describes what happens to a loose clump of rocks and debris.

       Well, as usual, due to his total lack of education in physics and astronomy, Hoagland has got it wrong. Tidal forces are a real phenomenon, to be sure. It's possible for them to be strong enough to cause the break-up of a moon, yes indeed. But NOT Phobos.

       FACT: Tidal force exerted on a moon depends on the radius and density of both the moon and its parent planet, and most critically on the mean distance from the planet of the moon's orbit. A gentleman called Edouard Roche, a French astronomer, did the difficult calculations for us back in 1848, and came up with a critical orbit radius INSIDE WHICH a moon of a given size and mass could not survive. This radius is known as the Roche limit. The classic example of the Roche limit in action is Saturn: inside about 133,000 kM, you get rings — beyond it, moons can and do accrete.

       FACT: Phobos's orbit is at 172% of its Roche limit.

       On this very radio show, back in 2006, Hoagland said in response to new Mars Express images of the so-called Face on Mars, "Science is not about what you can see, it's about what you can measure." Time for Hoagland to stop hand-waving do some measuring, methinks.

Update, 10/13/10: 
Yesterday this appeared on Hoagland's FB page:

My "ESA guy" got scared and refused to release/disclose what he'd promised several months ago.

No comment needed.


Biological_Unit said...

inside about 133,000 kM, you get rings — beyond it, moons can and do accrete.

Aren't there Moons in the Rings? I know they're not big.

Biological_Unit said...

moons can and do accrete

This has never been seen. It might be seen around other Solar Systems.

There is no way that Accretion can explain all of the strangely rotating and tilted planets with different compositions. One thing I do know is that RCH and Mike Bara will NEVER explain these observations.

Chris Lopes said...

So it's the "let's pretend I didn't say that and move onto the 'clues in what they said' gambit". I must admit I'm a bit disappointed at this one. This should have been good for a good conspiracy yarn or two, but instead, we get double talk "science" from a guy who is obviously out of his depth on this one. Perhaps this is just a holding action to keep things in play until after the $500 a person conference.

Biological_Unit said...

My coauthor on Dark Mission, Richard C. Hoagland, also conducted some experiments which showed that planetary alignments effected electrical instruments and energy output. There’s absolutely nothing in mainstream physics which can explain any of that!

There's nothing exciting about the changing output of the Sun. It varies over time, that's all. SO DO PLANETARY POSITIONS! Mike Bara has NOTHING to do with Science or Math!!

Biological_Unit said...

What I show in The Choice is that this “serpent rope” is a torsion beam, a pulse of energy from the alignment with the center of the galaxy. But the judgment is not, I believe, anything like the biblical Day of Judgment. What Quetzalcoatl will be judging is our intent for the planet we live on. If we are mired in fear, scarcity, and selfishness, then I think some of the negative physical earth changes are a distinct possibility.

1). We don't KNOW where the Galactic Plane is because we can't see through all the DUST.
2). What Quetzalcoatl will be judging is our intent for the planet we live on WHAT THE F*CK IS THAT??
3). I think some of the negative physical earth changes are a distinct possibility. YOU THINK?? NO YOU DON'T THINK - IT'S A BIT, A RUSE, WHOLE-CLOTH FAKERY!!

Biological_Unit said...

Mike Bara gets down to deception:

I’m completely confident that I can prove there’s no such thing as the laws of physics.

And what will you replace it with? Magical swords? Enchanted rings?
How will the businesses of modern technological society survive without engineering disciplines?

Chris Lopes said...

To be fair to Bara, there aren't any laws of physics, that he'd ever have any hope of understanding anyway.

Chris Lopes said...

ex pat, did you catch Hoagland's 9/29/2010 visit to C2C? It is a real piece of work. He did a whole 10 minute rant about the TV show "Event". It's another "they are telling us in code" thing. Damn silly.

expat said...

No, didn't hear that one. Maybe it'll turn up on youchoob soon. Even then I might not bother.

Chris Lopes said...

It is on youtube. It's in 6 parts and starts here:

He had the first 2 hours of the show. Interestingly enough, C2C has another space show update Monday, but Hoagland is not scheduled for it (Robert Zimmerman will be on). It seems that the C2C folks can tell the difference between real science and what Hoagland does.

Biological_Unit said...

No, I'm not going to listen to that!

The people who read and buy the Bara "buks" - wastelands of wasted ink - only buy them to put on their coffee-tables for show. Even pure idiots and straight-up retards enjoy Space.

Biological_Unit said...

BARA: Absolutely. I’m completely confident that I can prove there’s no such thing as the laws of physics;

The Choice includes:

* Detailed descriptions of a revolutionary new theory of physics that proves the theory behind The Secret

What? Is he paying attention to what he's saying? He has no short-term memory. He's up there in the High Priesthood of Crazy with Mars Revealer.

Chris Lopes said...

If there is no such thing as the laws of physics, how does Bara explain the world we live in? Considering those laws touch every single thing that happens, every physical, biological, and chemical process that exists, it would seem a tall order to disregard 10,000 years of acquired knowledge just so Bara can sell another book.

BU, as to your point about RCH, remember that at one time the guy was actually entertaining. Now that he has actually gone full tilt into the silly mush (just to make a living), he is no longer even that. He's just another pusher of bad pseudoscience.

Chris Lopes said...

Expat, on the update, I really thought he'd be more creative than that. It's not the first time I've overestimated him though. It will be the last.