Park Life

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave last year. This is summat people are mystifyied about: "They should have been fried" Then of course there is always the question of exactly how did the Apollo ships make it to the moon? Outer space is a minefield of deadly radiation emanating from solar flares emitted by the sun. Your average astronaut (like those responsible for fixing the Hubble telescope) orbits the earth in near space and are protected by the Earth's Van Allen belt. The moon though, is 240,000 miles distant and lies way outside this safe band. Astronomical data shows that during the Apollo flights 1,485 such flares occurred. It is the belief of John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, that in order to be protected from the radiation, shielding at least 2 metres thick would be required. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moon surfaces were according to NASA "about the thickness of heavy duty aluminium foil." Now, even giving NASA the benefit of the doubt (well it is almost Christmas and I'm in a generous mood), if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why as Rene asks, weren't such miracle suits used by rescue workers as protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown which released only a fraction of the dose the astronauts would have encountered?! Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the moon when a big flare started. As Rene rather eloquently puts it: "they should have been fried."" That article doesn't even get the basics right, the Van Allen belts were supposedly the cause of fatal radiation to astronauts, not protective of it. Bearing this in mind, how can you take it seriously? Of course, the fact that every reputable biophysicist in the world disputes that short exposure to this radiation is dangerous, including Van Allen himself before his death, seems to slip the minds of the Parky loons. Yes but it blocks dangerous solar radiation from the sun. Never heard that before. Source? Just tap it into wiki ffs!! So I have to research your patter now do I? No thanks. I'm shocked at your lack of cosmology....Where is my tuition fees??

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave last year. This is summat people are mystifyied about: "They should have been fried" Then of course there is always the question of exactly how did the Apollo ships make it to the moon? Outer space is a minefield of deadly radiation emanating from solar flares emitted by the sun. Your average astronaut (like those responsible for fixing the Hubble telescope) orbits the earth in near space and are protected by the Earth's Van Allen belt. The moon though, is 240,000 miles distant and lies way outside this safe band. Astronomical data shows that during the Apollo flights 1,485 such flares occurred. It is the belief of John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, that in order to be protected from the radiation, shielding at least 2 metres thick would be required. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moon surfaces were according to NASA "about the thickness of heavy duty aluminium foil." Now, even giving NASA the benefit of the doubt (well it is almost Christmas and I'm in a generous mood), if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why as Rene asks, weren't such miracle suits used by rescue workers as protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown which released only a fraction of the dose the astronauts would have encountered?! Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the moon when a big flare started. As Rene rather eloquently puts it: "they should have been fried."" That article doesn't even get the basics right, the Van Allen belts were supposedly the cause of fatal radiation to astronauts, not protective of it. Bearing this in mind, how can you take it seriously? Of course, the fact that every reputable biophysicist in the world disputes that short exposure to this radiation is dangerous, including Van Allen himself before his death, seems to slip the minds of the Parky loons. Yes but it blocks dangerous solar radiation from the sun. Never heard that before. Source? Just tap it into wiki ffs!!

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave last year. I don't think you gave an answer last time. Not a one to the question anyway. And look, you've done the same again. I'll deal with you later.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave last year. This is summat people are mystifyied about: "They should have been fried" Then of course there is always the question of exactly how did the Apollo ships make it to the moon? Outer space is a minefield of deadly radiation emanating from solar flares emitted by the sun. Your average astronaut (like those responsible for fixing the Hubble telescope) orbits the earth in near space and are protected by the Earth's Van Allen belt. The moon though, is 240,000 miles distant and lies way outside this safe band. Astronomical data shows that during the Apollo flights 1,485 such flares occurred. It is the belief of John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, that in order to be protected from the radiation, shielding at least 2 metres thick would be required. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moon surfaces were according to NASA "about the thickness of heavy duty aluminium foil." Now, even giving NASA the benefit of the doubt (well it is almost Christmas and I'm in a generous mood), if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why as Rene asks, weren't such miracle suits used by rescue workers as protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown which released only a fraction of the dose the astronauts would have encountered?! Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the moon when a big flare started. As Rene rather eloquently puts it: "they should have been fried."" That article doesn't even get the basics right, the Van Allen belts were supposedly the cause of fatal radiation to astronauts, not protective of it. Bearing this in mind, how can you take it seriously? Of course, the fact that every reputable biophysicist in the world disputes that short exposure to this radiation is dangerous, including Van Allen himself before his death, seems to slip the minds of the Parky loons. Yes but it blocks dangerous solar radiation from the sun.

One cigarette in four weeks for me.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave last year. This is summat people are mystifyied about: "They should have been fried" Then of course there is always the question of exactly how did the Apollo ships make it to the moon? Outer space is a minefield of deadly radiation emanating from solar flares emitted by the sun. Your average astronaut (like those responsible for fixing the Hubble telescope) orbits the earth in near space and are protected by the Earth's Van Allen belt. The moon though, is 240,000 miles distant and lies way outside this safe band. Astronomical data shows that during the Apollo flights 1,485 such flares occurred. It is the belief of John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, that in order to be protected from the radiation, shielding at least 2 metres thick would be required. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moon surfaces were according to NASA "about the thickness of heavy duty aluminium foil." Now, even giving NASA the benefit of the doubt (well it is almost Christmas and I'm in a generous mood), if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why as Rene asks, weren't such miracle suits used by rescue workers as protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown which released only a fraction of the dose the astronauts would have encountered?! Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the moon when a big flare started. As Rene rather eloquently puts it: "they should have been fried.""

What yah saying like? Yah dun say a ting I love the way Renton can't leave this thread alone. It will be back when I'm in the mood don't worry. The thread was partly about a BBC2 TV series, I was merely giving an update. If you want to list the loony theories you believe in we can deal with them one by one though. JFK - Undecided. Marilyn - Suicide. 9/11- More hands at the pump than admitted. Moon Landings - Faked or semi-faked. Bay of Pigs - Proven conspiracy. Diana- Murky goings on beforehand as well as her prophecy of her own death...."Breaks tampered with fear in letter". Enron - Proven conspiracy to de-fraud aided and abetted by accountants now bankcrupt.

All I think about is when can we get rid of him.

Don't bother with responding to the relevant points on why Coppell and Roeder aren't comparable then. I added the last comment because it always seems to be the people who aren't subjected to the matches weekly that rate Roeder. All you seem to do is look at results without taking into account the bigger picture it seems. Not that the results are good enough anyway. If I'm wrong about this please correct me. The same was true with Souness in general - not you that time, but more often than that ex pats. No, you're absolutely right. I don't pay any attention to anything Newcastle-related beyond my monthly check of the league table. I've never seen a game, whether at St. James' or on the TV. What I do is look at the score on the bbc website and then sit in my bedroom and invent what happened and write it in my diary. You love it!

Alex and Sweet. Yes we know all that. I can cut and paste 300 observations in the football press about first season expectations. And incidentally I broadly agree. The point still stands that they are doing better than us on little money...The questions have to be laid at Roeders door. The one or two players they purchased have been on the button and inventive buys. Is Coppell a better manager I suspect so....We will see next year when Owen moves, Emre leaves and we still don't have a left back and we're lying in 11th. Deep down we are all sceptical about Roeders ability to compete at the highest level I'm sure of this.

For Reading this season see Wigan last season, the second season is the real test. Yeah but we haven't seen Reading's second season yet have we? Unless you have a crystal ball. Sort of the point I'm trying to make but thanks anyway. They are doing better than us this year with limited funds right? I eagerly await your considered response.

For Reading this season see Wigan last season, the second season is the real test. Yeah but we haven't seen Reading's second season yet have we? Unless you have a crystal ball.

Excellent point.

Some of his more 'inspired' decisions have been borne out of necessity - Solano at right-back for example. Also, I doubt if Milner would have played much if everyone had been fit and he's been one of our best players. Ditto Nicky Butt. He is average, that is all I can bring myself to say.

What yah saying like? Yah dun say a ting I love the way Renton can't leave this thread alone. It will be back when I'm in the mood don't worry. The thread was partly about a BBC2 TV series, I was merely giving an update. If you want to list the loony theories you believe in we can deal with them one by one though. "I'm not an elephant I'm a human being"..

What yah saying like? Yah dun say a ting I love the way Renton can't leave this thread alone. It will be back when I'm in the mood don't worry.

Now there's a fantastic example of a film that I've seen, but I really wish I hadn't. Apalling I just think its crap, crap songs, boring boring boring film which celebrates 1950s America. Yeah racial segregation and witchhunts - wonderful. Do you like Goodfellas? Aye but its not really celebrating 50s American culture though is it and only the start is set in the 50s anyway. No, it's glamourising the Mafia though. Not that I'm arsed, I still like it. I just think it's a bit odd if you think a film like that is ok then think a nostalgic musical is bad quoting some of the events of the era it's set in as an example.

What yah saying like?

Thats not my view at all - I know that relatively recent discoveries actually open up whole new ball games and reveal a universe a million miles from Newton's notion that once we know how everything works then we can predict everything but its the intent to look at these things that appeals to me. The failure to question things is what condemns religion at its core for me (theology is just dancing around shite) - if science "proves" that the universe is the plaything of some mega-entity then so be it - but lets at least find the bloke first. Forget about fucking religion....the deabte here should be about spirituality, something we ALL have - even if we feel it only as a momentary sense of wonderment. And if we are going to line up spirituality/mysticism - then yes that would be a good foil for 'string theory'. These long sentences mean something....Not sure what. I take your point about religion however and agree. But the engine room of religion is mysticism....You see?? What you call "spirituality" I just called an evolved intellect taking in its environment with a "sense of wonder" which I have no problem with. It just doesn't have to be couched in pretensious terms imo. .....now here is something to chew on...I have a hunch that this 'sense of wonder' was here before us and is part of the universal force. This is not a trap and this isn't the God game reversed...What do you reckon?

Thats not my view at all - I know that relatively recent discoveries actually open up whole new ball games and reveal a universe a million miles from Newton's notion that once we know how everything works then we can predict everything but its the intent to look at these things that appeals to me. The failure to question things is what condemns religion at its core for me (theology is just dancing around shite) - if science "proves" that the universe is the plaything of some mega-entity then so be it - but lets at least find the bloke first. Forget about fucking religion....the deabte here should be about spirituality, something we ALL have - even if we feel it only as a momentary sense of wonderment. And if we are going to line up spirituality/mysticism - then yes that would be a good foil for 'string theory'. These long sentences mean something....Not sure what. I take your point about religion however and agree. But the engine room of religion is mysticism....You see??

Fair point - and I'd agree that some of the theories make a grey-haired old bloke look sensible in comparison but its the desire to find out that matters. I've read a couple of books on string theory - bizarrely they sort of made sense and the 10/11 dimensions thing is supported by maths. Well there were five versions of string theory ALL 'supported by maths', they just had to ascribe new behaviours to 'strings' to compensate for the fallabilities of the ideation. It IS a philopsophy and calculations at this leve I feel pretty much akin to art....perhaps even mysticism...of magic...As the all encompassing string theory is know as M. I'll have to look it up but I'm sure he laughed when he said it stood for Magic. nb There is no need to pollute the religious debate with morality at all...morality doesn't exist in nature which is savage or in the universe which is destructive as much as it is creative...MORALITY is a man made invention completely, as is the notion of GOD.

I can see the 14bn years is nothing argument but its the 14bn years in the context of 6000 years of "action" that makes no sense to me. There are now very few scientists who dispute the age and size of the universe or evolution - those that do tend to be theists - I think they have what is known as compartmentalised minds - they can be perfectly good scientists but have what I would say is an unscientific portion which sees things differently due to faith. There are obviously perfectly decent christians. My mother was one and we used to talk about these things - my view of christians is certainly not one of the kind of ignorance you suggest. Again there are many scientists who are theists but there is a general correlation between education and lack of belief. Many American sites who try this argument have a very dubious definition of scientists when it comes to this and would for example count people with degrees in Engineering - now I think engineers are to a certain extent scientists in that they apply scientific principles but I don't think they are as relevant to the argument as physicists and biologists where the correlation of non-believers is far, far greater. The brain and the mind combine to form one of the last frontiers of science. A lot of recent work has started to explain "revelations" and "mystical experience" - I'm not saying such discoveries would or should hinder your beliefs per se - they are a part of you but I'd hope your fascination with science would let you consider such evdence. Creationism as part of a study of comparitive religions and obviously including the hundreds of versions ie not just genesis I don't have a problem with (though the subject should be optional). Teaching it as science is completely wrong. As I said earlier even though history is open to interpretation key facts like who won wars and whether the holocaust happened are sacrosant - there is no "alternative" theory of the German death camps and the same should be true about the age of the world and the common descent of man. The evidence really is overwhelming to the point that creationists should be dismissed as easily as the nutjobs who deny the holocaust. As an alternative science to evolution its a joke - as is its stealth cousin - ID. As has been said many times the phrase "theory" in scientific terms is not the same as in more general useage. Evolution is really just as nailed on as gravity or electricity. Dawkins has rattled a few cages and thats one of the best things imo - firstly we are seeing how much people rely on this "you must respect us" thing as a barrier to honest query. Secondly the arguments used against him if examined somewhat prove his point - classics like he doesn't understand theology - replied by I don't need to undertsand Astrology or Fairyology to know they are flawed. It also seems apparent that theology is a non-subject without a God - that seems obvious but theologians have now moved on from defending the biblical god and have tried to move the goalposts more towards Isegrim's "God" - as I said fair enough but thats not the God most people "know". The atheists/ moderate theists who have attacked him tend to be from the camp who demand too much respect imo. People who look at the good believers do as a justification for the faith. Once again as I argued with Isegrim I prefer to see that as people who would do good with or without the faith. They also use the argument "it makes people happy" - once again I have no objection to "comfort" but that doesn't make the beliefs themselves any more true. You also have the point as made by Sam Harris that "nice" believers get in the way of the "nasty" elements. Because we are taught that faith is a virtue no matter what we say there is no great will to condemn fundamentalists as they are just "really faithful" or "holy". If the moderate followers of religion all woke up tomorrow and said en masse "we reject dogmatic faith and fundmentalism" the idiots wouldn't last much longer. I'm sorry but there are huge disparities on the nature and age of the universe/universes. On a basic level General relativity breaks down at the quantum level and the 'new' all encompassing 'string theory' is better described as philosophy as it displays many exotic characteristics and perhaps needs 11 dimensions for it to work. In fact NJS deeper science digs into the nature of things the less things become predictable an infact nearly everything is possible at the same time. It is utter rubbish the way you are portraying science as some kind of codifying all encompassing force IT ISN'T...Physics is currently in an exciting mess as we see how little we understand and how little we can predict.

Perhaps God is an unifying 'force' (science) as much as a spriritual being (religion)?

I have to admit there were bits in this where there was a deffo lump in the throat...Mangaged to hold it back enough to get away with 'man crying'.

Is it Gemmil?