It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mmakshak
What I read on this was very interesting, and I have some naive questions to ask. I saw a plane, fairly low flying, and leaving a com/chem trail, when all of a sudden, the trail disappeared for just a short distance, then started up again at the same height. What is the explanation for that?
Number two: a plane was descending, leaving no chem/con trail, when all of sudden it started to leave one. What would the explanation be for that?
....I have some naive questions to ask. I saw a plane, fairly low flying....
Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by jackmac
What you wrote in the second sentence, does not change the meaning of the first, self contained, sentence. It may expand upon it or qualify it to some extent, but that first sentence is clear and unambiguous. To then flat out deny that you said it is dishonest, pure and simple.
That ok with you?
edit on 18-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by SDSkyWatcher
You may be new...but generally there are several people on here asking...those questions are the same ones that were asked back in 200, and 2005, and 2010.
And since the answers ...haven't' changed ....
That's the thing about science - its true for a long time, and it gets remembered and documented and proved.
Originally posted by SDSkyWatcher
I am learning quickly who seems to have all the answers around here, and they just make me more suspicious.
Originally posted by jackmac
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by SDSkyWatcher
That's the thing about science - its true for a long time, and it gets remembered and documented and proved.
The 'thing' about science? This statement is completely the wrong way round. Science is just currently accepted theory awaiting inevitable falsification. It waits to get disproved.
Originally posted by SDSkyWatcher
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
That contrail website is obviously one of you "debunker" (pilot?) guys site and clearly you have lots of time on your hands. Shouldn't you be out flying planes with all your expertise?
Most of what is written on the internet is what somebody wants you to believe.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by jackmac
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by SDSkyWatcher
That's the thing about science - its true for a long time, and it gets remembered and documented and proved.
The 'thing' about science? This statement is completely the wrong way round. Science is just currently accepted theory awaiting inevitable falsification. It waits to get disproved.
That's prety much what I said - dunno why you think it is different?
Of course "inevitable" disproving is emotive nonsense - much science will never be disproved - I'm sure you can think of examples - the gas laws, ohms law, the potential of a lead-acid cell, the energy released by hydrogen/oxygen combustion,etc.
But apart from your broad brush inaccuracies I'm pretty sure whet you said and what I said are effectively teh same thing.
thanks Lee.
I love your 9/11 hi-jackers fiction.
And all that stuff about people complaining about things like aircraft noise.
Originally posted by jackmac
and, when we're talking about science, we're really talking about the cutting edge, the frontiers, the bits that make 'progress', no?
And anyway, I disagree with the premise that 'much science will never be disproved'. If humans continue to live and develop science, then it is inevitable that every single current law of physics will be altered. It is how we 'progress'. It's a philosophical point.