New to ATS and the thread.

It's obvious who was quick to the offense.

You know, there are some whose interest in science only serves to sustain their heavy and unwarranted ego.

Ah, I didn't realize the party had moved three doors down. Sorry for posting in response to dialog three months old. Good to see it's been whitewashed.

Originally posted by olduvai
Ah, I didn't realize the party had moved three doors down. Sorry for posting in response to dialog three months old. Good to see it's been whitewashed.

Ummm this thread was posted Dec 8th 2007... the thread dates are day/month/year...

The posted article was dated Dec 07 2007... that would have been a clue..

Welcome to ATS but please read the thread before knocking it

Greetings Matyas, I see I touched your nerve and you went a little ballistic in your post:

Originally posted by Matyas
The good doctor BS is a different story. His excuse is ignorance

It is?

for example n another thread he just told me ballistic trajectories (what I call attributes of the atmosphere) of charged particles on the Moon's surface is without merit.

Wait... Ballistic trajectories of charged particles are somehow an attribute of the atmosphere? That's a non sequitur. Get your logic straight.

I suspect his claims of expertise is without merit.

This is entirely your right, however you haven't even started an intelligent conversation on the subject of interaction of radiation and media.

How can anyone study the paths of charged particles in a medium with as much significant effort as he says he did and still not have heard of ballistics?

Oh yes I have heard of ballistics. It has little to nothing to do with interaction of moving charged particles or photons (often referred to as radiation) with a medium:

Ballistics (gr. ba'llein, "throw") is the science of mechanics that deals with the motion, behavior, and effects of projectiles, especially bullets, gravity bombs, rockets, or the like

And now to:

And the rest is just downhill. Charged particles cannot bounce on a surface of like charge

They can't?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Oh yes I have heard of ballistics. It has little to nothing to do with interaction of moving charged particles or photons (often referred to as radiation) with a medium:

Ballistics (gr. ba'llein, "throw") is the science of mechanics that deals with the motion, behavior, and effects of projectiles, especially bullets, gravity bombs, rockets, or the like

Wasn't it you who said that, when speaking in an arena outside your personal expertise, there are terms used that can create misunderstanding? I would posit that the use of the term "ballistic" is merely a loosely applied adjective to a quantum scale phenomenon.

Lets not get too hung up on semantics. I see no new hairs that need splitting.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Wasn't it you who said that, when speaking in an arena outside your personal expertise, there are terms used that can create misunderstanding? I would posit that the use of the term "ballistic" is merely a loosely applied adjective to a quantum scale phenomenon.

Indeed. If I remember correctly, the original controversy in that regard was due to my statement that the abundance of He3 on the Moon is a proof of the absense of an atmosphere there. What I heard back was that the atmosphere might be there but has "different ballistic properties". I am sorry if my recollection is incorrect, but that's what I remember.

Now, my argument was/is that the "different ballistic properties" of the lunar atmosphere are an invalid statement. It would actually have some sense if the author stipulated that the gas in the alleged atmosphere is helium hence it's more "transparent" to cosmic rays, but it's still silly on the face value. In addition, lighter gases would escape the Moon even faster than oxygen!

Bottom line, it's not about hair-splitting. You told us you plan to mine He3 on the Moon and I sincerely wish you best of luck. I might as well comment on the adjacent physics facts for your own benefit. Seriously.