Fundamental questions

I seriously doubt someone with a PhD would go through all that trouble to prove his worth to people who think the earth is flat...  :lol:

Especially since they would just say that was someone else in the picture, because, as noted earlier in the post, photographic evidence can never be used.

If he wants to continue his arguments, he should at least prove he is what he says he is.

This is pathetic. It's like trying to convince a group of kids there is no santa clause.

Well, I guess I can't convince you I have a PhD... then again, you cant convince me that the earth is flat. I guess we both lose. Or do we both win? Or does one of us lose, and the other wins? I'm not sure.

This is pathetic. It's like trying to convince a group of kids there is no santa clause.

Well, I guess I can't convince you I have a PhD... then again, you cant convince me that the earth is flat. I guess we both lose. Or do we both win? Or does one of us lose, and the other wins? I'm not sure.

There's no Santa?  :cry:

I think the word you're looking for is "stalemate". :wink: You are correct, sir.

'Course, I never said I doubted your claim to a PhD. I was just pointing out to Hara that pics are unreliable in this day and age.

We cannot prove that you are not what you say you are, but this is the internet, good sir. When you claim something, you may just be faking it.

Though I doubt you really are faking it (after reading your in-depth thing), it would still benefit yourself to actually prove it. I'm simply giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Another way to prove it, is to actually go about and explain a lot of our questions.

not that it's impossible, but there is no Westerhoff working at Columbia in the astrophysics department.  I may have missed something, or he may be in a different department, but I can find no truth in the evidence brought forth so far.

Let me be clear though, I really don't dislike this guy, I have no problem with him, just if he isn't what he claims to be, he ought to fess up to it.  Simple as that.

http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/~westerhoff/

You might wanna look at that page, jadexg.

http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/~westerhoff/

You might wanna look at that page, jadexg.

fair enough, I went through their astrophysics home site, and searched through faculty.  He's not on those departmental lists (hence my statement that I wasn't certain)

Yeah, I did a Google search.

Quote from: "astrophysics"

OK, the sun and earth are accelaerating at the rate of 1g? This indicates that the earth (something like 4 billion years old) would be moving at about 4.5 x 10^20 meters / second right now. Speeds like that would destroy anything.

Too bad you can't go over 3*10^8 m/s when it comes to speeds.

Quote from: "astrophysics"

Also, why is the gravity on the moon about 1/6 of that of earth if they are accelreating at the same rate?

Prove it.

Quote from: "astrophysics"

I noticed your sun rotation FAQ explaining day and night. Please explain a lunar eclipse. Traditionally, a lunar eclipse is when the shadow the earth is cast upon the moon. How is this possible if the earth is always below the sun and moon?

I'll explain it in three simple steps.

1)  Grab a flashlight that works and has batteries.
2)  Turn it on and off.
3)  Gather the pieces of your blown mind.

Quote from: "astrophysics"

The next one is March 3, 2007.

Holy shit, that's my birthday!

Here is where this topic ended:  Four posts from the beginning.  It doesn't really matter if you can or can't prove you're a PhD in these forums.  If you can prove it, we are not automatically going to concede all arguments because the brilliant light emanating from your piece of paper has opened our eyes.  We're just poking fun that you think it does matter.

Now, please explain to BOG why you think he is right or wrong.  I would like to hear what a PhD in astrophysics has to say.

OK, the sun and earth are accelaerating at the rate of 1g? This indicates that the earth (something like 4 billion years old) would be moving at about 4.5 x 10^20 meters / second right now. Speeds like that would destroy anything.

I just want to know how a person with a Ph.D in astrophysics could 'forget' about relativity.

I just want to know how a person with a Ph.D in astrophysics could 'forget' about relativity.

I think it's funny, too.  But I've made mistakes of that size before (remember my post on FE distances?).  

I would still like to hear what he thinks.