Comments on: News Alert: LHC lawsuit collides with pavement

By: Large Hadron Colliders a DANGER?? - Page 49 - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:10:49 +0000

[...] LHC Lawsuit Collides with Pavement Quote: [...]

By: Rand

Rand — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:54:47 +0000

@Brown, a lack of subject matter jurisdiction isn’t a technicality, but if you had read my post, you would realize that the court could have had subject matter jurisdiction if it wanted it. A court saying that they don’t have it doesn’t mean they can’t have it, it means they don’t want to have it.

By: Jose

Jose — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:22:59 +0000

@Paul
I watched the video. A few things were funny. The first is the contention that quantum physicists will do anything to prove Hawking right. In fact, many physicists have devoted large chunks of their careers to showing that Hawking was wrong about information being destroyed by black holes. And they’ve done a pretty good job of it. Instead of just conceding defeat, Hawking instead said something to the effect of “We’ll I was wrong, but so were you guys.” He then proposed a hypothesis that looks strikingly crankish, and few physicists are taking it very seriously.

The second is that Hawking lecture was chopped up and edited in a way to make it sound like he saying things he isn’t. Actually, the whole video was assembled this way.

The third is the premise that scientist are willing to destroy the earth to avoid admitting that they did the “wrong calculus”. That’s just silly. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go burn down my house before my wife finds out I spilled some water on the carpet.

By: Jose

Jose — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:58:45 +0000

@Ray
Oh God. I’m going to partially defend Paul.
I think what he’s referring to is the fact that pre-little ice age, Scandinavians got most of their nutrition from dairy and livestock, but ate very little fish. Once the little ice age hit, this became much more difficult. People in Scandinavia and Iceland turned to fish in order to survive. On Greenland they didn’t (We can tell this by looking at the lack of fish remains in their waste.) The people there either died out or left. One of the main theories why this happened is racism. Basically, they couldn’t bring themselves to eat the same food that a group of people many considered to be sub-human ate. Factors like deforestation also played a big role. I’ve never heard of Christianity playing a part though.

By: Brown

Brown — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:40:37 +0000

This may be just a technicality, but legally speaking, lack of subject matter jurisdiction is NOT “a technicality.”

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:23:09 +0000

Paul,

I know you didn’t make that video, but this is just wrong:

“In groenland all white men died because they wouldnt eat fish as the
eskimos were doing. Their ideology (Christianity) forbade it then.”

The Church allowed people to eat fish in those days. If they didn’t, most of northern europe would have died.

Also, the native Greenlanders will happily show people the fish traps and pens that have been discovered and dated to the Norse period, proving that the Greenland Norse caught and ate fish quite well.

By: GumbyTheCat

GumbyTheCat — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:17:11 +0000

What? No comment from JTankers yet?

He must be busy pushing Hawaii to Europe so Wagner can refile his frivolous suit.