Carl Edward Sagan was an American astronomer and science communicator.
His best known scientific contribution is his research on the possibility of extraterrestrial life.
He assembled the first physical messages sent into space
which were universal messages that could potentially be understood by any extraterrestrial intelligence that might find them.

Astronomy is the study of everything in the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere.

That means a space nut.

'beyond Earth's atmosphere' means he knew he wasn't allowed to study...earth science.

There are no other samples to comare it with so why bother learning earth science????

There is no organic soil anywhere else in the universe...

You people are not allowed to study...earth science.

any trees on Mars? or Venus?? ...anywhere else???

You people are not allowed to study...earth science.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On Dec 16, 2023, The Starmaker wrote on sci.physics
(in article <657E0B2A.2847@ix.netcom.com>):

> Carl Edward Sagan was an American astronomer and science communicator.
> His best known scientific contribution is his research on the possibility of
> extraterrestrial life.
> He assembled the first physical messages sent into space
> which were universal messages that could potentially be understood by any
> extraterrestrial intelligence that might find them.
>
> Astronomy is the study of everything in the universe beyond Earth's
> atmosphere.
>
> That means a space nut.
>
> 'beyond Earth's atmosphere' means he knew he wasn't allowed to study...earth
> science.
>
> There are no other samples to comare it with so why bother learning earth
> science????
>
> There is no organic soil anywhere else in the universe...
>
> You people are not allowed to study...earth science.
>
> any trees on Mars? or Venus?? ...anywhere else???
>
> You people are not allowed to study...earth science.

I did my M.Sc. in the then Department of Geophysics and Astronomy
at The University of British Columbia, and there was some interaction
between the floors and over beer, and a shared reading room. Many
astronomers are involved in research into exoplanets which involves
comparison to the Earth and other solar system planets. And planetology
sort of bridges astronomy and geoscience.

--
David Dalton dalton@nfld.com https://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"And if I shed a tear I won’t cage it; I won't fear love;
And if I feel a rage I won’t deny it; I won't fear love" (Sarah McLachlan)

On 12/16/2023 2:40 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Carl Edward Sagan was an American astronomer and science communicator.
> His best known scientific contribution is his research on the possibility of extraterrestrial life.
> He assembled the first physical messages sent into space
> which were universal messages that could potentially be understood by any extraterrestrial intelligence that might find them.
>
>
> Astronomy is the study of everything in the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere.
>
>
> That means a space nut.
>
>
>
> 'beyond Earth's atmosphere' means he knew he wasn't allowed to study...earth science.
>
>
> There are no other samples to comare it with so why bother learning earth science????
>
> There is no organic soil anywhere else in the universe...
>
>
>
>
> You people are not allowed to study...earth science.
>
>
>
> any trees on Mars? or Venus?? ...anywhere else???
>
>
>
> You people are not allowed to study...earth science.
>
>
>
>

Don't get mad now that you found out it was Velikovsky who said that,
not Sagan.

Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> On 12/16/2023 2:40 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Carl Edward Sagan was an American astronomer and science communicator.
> > His best known scientific contribution is his research on the possibility of extraterrestrial life.
> > He assembled the first physical messages sent into space
> > which were universal messages that could potentially be understood by any extraterrestrial intelligence that might find them.
> >
> >
> > Astronomy is the study of everything in the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere.
> >
> >
> > That means a space nut.
> >
> >
> >
> > 'beyond Earth's atmosphere' means he knew he wasn't allowed to study...earth science.
> >
> >
> > There are no other samples to comare it with so why bother learning earth science????
> >
> > There is no organic soil anywhere else in the universe...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You people are not allowed to study...earth science.
> >
> >
> >
> > any trees on Mars? or Venus?? ...anywhere else???
> >
> >
> >
> > You people are not allowed to study...earth science.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Don't get mad now that you found out it was Velikovsky who said that,
> not Sagan.

Never heard da name Velikovsky...not even worth googling it.

My info comes from book Cosmos...you probably forgot who wrote it or
wats in it for sure.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On 12/16/2023 11:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>> On 12/16/2023 2:40 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Carl Edward Sagan was an American astronomer and science communicator.
>>> His best known scientific contribution is his research on the possibility of extraterrestrial life.
>>> He assembled the first physical messages sent into space
>>> which were universal messages that could potentially be understood by any extraterrestrial intelligence that might find them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Astronomy is the study of everything in the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere.
>>>
>>>
>>> That means a space nut.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 'beyond Earth's atmosphere' means he knew he wasn't allowed to study...earth science.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are no other samples to comare it with so why bother learning earth science????
>>>
>>> There is no organic soil anywhere else in the universe...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You people are not allowed to study...earth science.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> any trees on Mars? or Venus?? ...anywhere else???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You people are not allowed to study...earth science.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Don't get mad now that you found out it was Velikovsky who said that,
>> not Sagan.
>
>
> Never heard da name Velikovsky...not even worth googling it.
>
>
> My info comes from book Cosmos...you probably forgot who wrote it or
> wats in it for sure.
>
>
>

Your info, perhaps. But was that quote from Cosmos also, and verbatim?
Or did you just say it from your memory?

Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> On 12/16/2023 11:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/16/2023 2:40 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Carl Edward Sagan was an American astronomer and science communicator.
> >>> His best known scientific contribution is his research on the possibility of extraterrestrial life.
> >>> He assembled the first physical messages sent into space
> >>> which were universal messages that could potentially be understood by any extraterrestrial intelligence that might find them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Astronomy is the study of everything in the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That means a space nut.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 'beyond Earth's atmosphere' means he knew he wasn't allowed to study...earth science.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There are no other samples to comare it with so why bother learning earth science????
> >>>
> >>> There is no organic soil anywhere else in the universe...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You people are not allowed to study...earth science.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> any trees on Mars? or Venus?? ...anywhere else???
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You people are not allowed to study...earth science.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Don't get mad now that you found out it was Velikovsky who said that,
> >> not Sagan.
> >
> >
> > Never heard da name Velikovsky...not even worth googling it.
> >
> >
> > My info comes from book Cosmos...you probably forgot who wrote it or
> > wats in it for sure.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Your info, perhaps. But was that quote from Cosmos also, and verbatim?
> Or did you just say it from your memory?

I wrote:

"okay, here are the order of events by Carl Sagan...

'trees formed the primitive atmosphere of earth and the first oceans.'

should be easy for you to understand as layman as I could put it."

"...as layman as I could put it". That mean, simple language.

The word "tree" might be too difficult for you to understand.

Carl Sagan didn't use the word 'tree', he used it's composition: hydrogen and methane.

He is not allowed to say the word...'tree'.

I bet a million dollars you don't know where 'trees' come from! A MILLION DOLLARS!!!

You don't know what you don't know and what you are not allowed to know.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On 12/16/2023 11:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Never heard da name Velikovsky...not even worth googling it

Velikovsky was a cool guy in fact :) A keen sense of business, using
cro-magnon features in the American societies. It got him a lot of
money! Even in 1990s, at workplace when someone wanted to bring up a
"scientific" fact about the world, they'd tell me with enthusiasm how
they enjoyed reading of "Worlds in Collision" (or something) by
Velikovsky. Americans were still reading those early 1950s stuff!...
more than 40 years after they appeared. So the guy was smart and knew
what he was doing. And did it perfectly well. Hahahah :))

Sagan was too good for that level of people (much higher in number
compared to Sagan's readers), and couldn't sell well among them.
Velikovsky had placed himself right at the correct position, targeting
the largest part of Americans that read books at all. Very clever way of
making a lot of money.

This Archie here isn't even a fart compared with Velikovsky, although is
trying to do the same. In fact, I don't think he has had any of his
ebooks read by even by one person :) So describing him as "fart" indeed
is an overestimation. Big strategic mistake, costing him a lot of time
wasted. He chose the wrong subject. Americans aren't interested in
physics and math. As simple as that.

Velikovsky, on the other had, cleverly made his claims about the Earth
and solar system carefully look similar to Americans' religious beliefs!
So everybody who knew something about Bible would get immensely curious
to see what this "scientist" was saying. He said everything in a way to
give it a scientific tone. Very clever.

Sagan, had another formula for making his books successful, which
satiated the appetites of much fewer people in the USA.

On 12/16/2023 11:30 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Carl Sagan didn't use the word 'tree', he used it's composition: hydrogen and methane.
>
> He is not allowed to say the word...'tree'.

What!... You son of a gun. So he didn't say "tree" and you quoted him as
saying "tree."

That explains it then :)

Hahhha :)

On 12/16/2023 11:36 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 12/16/2023 11:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Never heard da name Velikovsky...not even worth googling it
>
>
> Velikovsky was a cool guy in fact :) A keen sense of business, using
> cro-magnon features in the American societies. It got him a lot of
> money! Even in 1990s, at workplace when someone wanted to bring up a
> "scientific" fact about the world, they'd tell me with enthusiasm how
> they enjoyed reading of "Worlds in Collision" (or something) by
> Velikovsky. Americans were still reading those early 1950s stuff!...
> more than 40 years after they appeared. So the guy was smart and knew
> what he was doing. And did it perfectly well. Hahahah :))
>
> Sagan was too good for that level of people (much higher in number
> compared to Sagan's readers), and couldn't sell well among them.
> Velikovsky had placed himself right at the correct position, targeting
> the largest part of Americans that read books at all. Very clever way of
> making a lot of money.
>
> This Archie here isn't even a fart compared with Velikovsky, although is
> trying to do the same. In fact, I don't think he has had any of his
> ebooks read by even by one person :) So describing him as "fart" indeed
> is an overestimation. Big strategic mistake, costing him a lot of time
> wasted. He chose the wrong subject. Americans aren't interested in
> physics and math. As simple as that.
>
> Velikovsky, on the other had, cleverly made his claims about the Earth
> and solar system carefully look similar to Americans' religious beliefs!
> So everybody who knew something about Bible would get immensely curious
> to see what this "scientist" was saying. He said everything in a way to
> give it a scientific tone. Very clever.
>
> Sagan, had another formula for making his books successful, which
> satiated the appetites of much fewer people in the USA.
>
>
>
>

Sagan was very successful in selling his books too, but nothing compared
to Velikovsky. He was so pissed at Velikovsky for giving bullshit to
dumb people, making them even more removed from reality, and making 50
times more money in doing that compared with himself. So there was this
intense resentment between the scientist Sagan, towards the businessman
Velikovsky hiding himself inside a scientist's shell.

Very interesting situation :)

Velikovsky was no stranger with true science (he had several degrees in
various fields), but was trying to make a lot of money, not to educate
people about anything. He just used the "science" theme because he knew
it would work pretty well when making it look like something close to
religious predictions crap. His formula was pure gold.

On 12/17/2023 12:05 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 12/16/2023 11:36 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 12/16/2023 11:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Never heard da name Velikovsky...not even worth googling it
>>
>>
>> Velikovsky was a cool guy in fact :) A keen sense of business, using
>> cro-magnon features in the American societies. It got him a lot of
>> money! Even in 1990s, at workplace when someone wanted to bring up a
>> "scientific" fact about the world, they'd tell me with enthusiasm how
>> they enjoyed reading of "Worlds in Collision" (or something) by
>> Velikovsky. Americans were still reading those early 1950s stuff!...
>> more than 40 years after they appeared. So the guy was smart and knew
>> what he was doing. And did it perfectly well. Hahahah :))
>>
>> Sagan was too good for that level of people (much higher in number
>> compared to Sagan's readers), and couldn't sell well among them.
>> Velikovsky had placed himself right at the correct position, targeting
>> the largest part of Americans that read books at all. Very clever way
>> of making a lot of money.
>>
>> This Archie here isn't even a fart compared with Velikovsky, although
>> is trying to do the same. In fact, I don't think he has had any of his
>> ebooks read by even by one person :) So describing him as "fart"
>> indeed is an overestimation. Big strategic mistake, costing him a lot
>> of time wasted. He chose the wrong subject. Americans aren't
>> interested in physics and math. As simple as that.
>>
>> Velikovsky, on the other had, cleverly made his claims about the Earth
>> and solar system carefully look similar to Americans' religious
>> beliefs! So everybody who knew something about Bible would get
>> immensely curious to see what this "scientist" was saying. He said
>> everything in a way to give it a scientific tone. Very clever.
>>
>> Sagan, had another formula for making his books successful, which
>> satiated the appetites of much fewer people in the USA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Sagan was very successful in selling his books too, but nothing compared
> to Velikovsky. He was so pissed at Velikovsky for giving bullshit to
> dumb people, making them even more removed from reality, and making 50
> times more money in doing that compared with himself. So there was this
> intense resentment between the scientist Sagan, towards the businessman
> Velikovsky hiding himself inside a scientist's shell.
>
> Very interesting situation :)
>
> Velikovsky was no stranger with true science (he had several degrees in
> various fields), but was trying to make a lot of money, not to educate
> people about anything. He just used the "science" theme because he knew
> it would work pretty well when making it look like something close to
> religious predictions crap. His formula was pure gold.
>

In fact, I just checked, _all_ his books are still in print and being
newly printed. They're still selling like hell. 70 years after first
coming out and making him rich throughout 1950s and 60s and 70s, till
the last day he lived; and they're still pouring money into pockets of
whoever that owns the rights to his works. A testament to the fact that
American society has not taken one step away from total ignorance and
isolation.

His books are written for Sheep. For the exact way through which Sheep
look at "science". And sheep, American people have been and are, and
will be in the future as long as their isolation from reality is
maintained.

Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> On 12/17/2023 12:05 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> > On 12/16/2023 11:36 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> >> On 12/16/2023 11:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Never heard da name Velikovsky...not even worth googling it
> >>
> >>
> >> Velikovsky was a cool guy in fact :) A keen sense of business, using
> >> cro-magnon features in the American societies. It got him a lot of
> >> money! Even in 1990s, at workplace when someone wanted to bring up a
> >> "scientific" fact about the world, they'd tell me with enthusiasm how
> >> they enjoyed reading of "Worlds in Collision" (or something) by
> >> Velikovsky. Americans were still reading those early 1950s stuff!...
> >> more than 40 years after they appeared. So the guy was smart and knew
> >> what he was doing. And did it perfectly well. Hahahah :))
> >>
> >> Sagan was too good for that level of people (much higher in number
> >> compared to Sagan's readers), and couldn't sell well among them.
> >> Velikovsky had placed himself right at the correct position, targeting
> >> the largest part of Americans that read books at all. Very clever way
> >> of making a lot of money.
> >>
> >> This Archie here isn't even a fart compared with Velikovsky, although
> >> is trying to do the same. In fact, I don't think he has had any of his
> >> ebooks read by even by one person :) So describing him as "fart"
> >> indeed is an overestimation. Big strategic mistake, costing him a lot
> >> of time wasted. He chose the wrong subject. Americans aren't
> >> interested in physics and math. As simple as that.
> >>
> >> Velikovsky, on the other had, cleverly made his claims about the Earth
> >> and solar system carefully look similar to Americans' religious
> >> beliefs! So everybody who knew something about Bible would get
> >> immensely curious to see what this "scientist" was saying. He said
> >> everything in a way to give it a scientific tone. Very clever.
> >>
> >> Sagan, had another formula for making his books successful, which
> >> satiated the appetites of much fewer people in the USA.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Sagan was very successful in selling his books too, but nothing compared
> > to Velikovsky. He was so pissed at Velikovsky for giving bullshit to
> > dumb people, making them even more removed from reality, and making 50
> > times more money in doing that compared with himself. So there was this
> > intense resentment between the scientist Sagan, towards the businessman
> > Velikovsky hiding himself inside a scientist's shell.
> >
> > Very interesting situation :)
> >
> > Velikovsky was no stranger with true science (he had several degrees in
> > various fields), but was trying to make a lot of money, not to educate
> > people about anything. He just used the "science" theme because he knew
> > it would work pretty well when making it look like something close to
> > religious predictions crap. His formula was pure gold.
> >
>
> In fact, I just checked, _all_ his books are still in print and being
> newly printed. They're still selling like hell. 70 years after first
> coming out and making him rich throughout 1950s and 60s and 70s, till
> the last day he lived; and they're still pouring money into pockets of
> whoever that owns the rights to his works. A testament to the fact that
> American society has not taken one step away from total ignorance and
> isolation.
>
> His books are written for Sheep. For the exact way through which Sheep
> look at "science". And sheep, American people have been and are, and
> will be in the future as long as their isolation from reality is
> maintained.

Like you said, you're not a business. Carl Sagan was a 'TVeee
Scientists'.

That means every time a cow burbed or an apple fell from a tree the
media would call him and he was ON THE AIR...selling books.

He'd be on the radio stations all over the united states talking on the
phone
and showing up at TV News stations all over the usa.

They are the ones who sold his books.

Each radion and tvee stations has millions of viewers and listners.

dat is how you sell books.

Everybody at FoxNews automatically has a number one best seller.

And it's not because the book is good.

"These Boots Are Made For Walking." was a hit because
Frank Sinatra made the radio stations play it oven and over and over and
over....

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On 12/17/2023 2:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>> On 12/17/2023 12:05 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2023 11:36 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2023 11:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Never heard da name Velikovsky...not even worth googling it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Velikovsky was a cool guy in fact :) A keen sense of business, using
>>>> cro-magnon features in the American societies. It got him a lot of
>>>> money! Even in 1990s, at workplace when someone wanted to bring up a
>>>> "scientific" fact about the world, they'd tell me with enthusiasm how
>>>> they enjoyed reading of "Worlds in Collision" (or something) by
>>>> Velikovsky. Americans were still reading those early 1950s stuff!...
>>>> more than 40 years after they appeared. So the guy was smart and knew
>>>> what he was doing. And did it perfectly well. Hahahah :))
>>>>
>>>> Sagan was too good for that level of people (much higher in number
>>>> compared to Sagan's readers), and couldn't sell well among them.
>>>> Velikovsky had placed himself right at the correct position, targeting
>>>> the largest part of Americans that read books at all. Very clever way
>>>> of making a lot of money.
>>>>
>>>> This Archie here isn't even a fart compared with Velikovsky, although
>>>> is trying to do the same. In fact, I don't think he has had any of his
>>>> ebooks read by even by one person :) So describing him as "fart"
>>>> indeed is an overestimation. Big strategic mistake, costing him a lot
>>>> of time wasted. He chose the wrong subject. Americans aren't
>>>> interested in physics and math. As simple as that.
>>>>
>>>> Velikovsky, on the other had, cleverly made his claims about the Earth
>>>> and solar system carefully look similar to Americans' religious
>>>> beliefs! So everybody who knew something about Bible would get
>>>> immensely curious to see what this "scientist" was saying. He said
>>>> everything in a way to give it a scientific tone. Very clever.
>>>>
>>>> Sagan, had another formula for making his books successful, which
>>>> satiated the appetites of much fewer people in the USA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sagan was very successful in selling his books too, but nothing compared
>>> to Velikovsky. He was so pissed at Velikovsky for giving bullshit to
>>> dumb people, making them even more removed from reality, and making 50
>>> times more money in doing that compared with himself. So there was this
>>> intense resentment between the scientist Sagan, towards the businessman
>>> Velikovsky hiding himself inside a scientist's shell.
>>>
>>> Very interesting situation :)
>>>
>>> Velikovsky was no stranger with true science (he had several degrees in
>>> various fields), but was trying to make a lot of money, not to educate
>>> people about anything. He just used the "science" theme because he knew
>>> it would work pretty well when making it look like something close to
>>> religious predictions crap. His formula was pure gold.
>>>
>>
>> In fact, I just checked, _all_ his books are still in print and being
>> newly printed. They're still selling like hell. 70 years after first
>> coming out and making him rich throughout 1950s and 60s and 70s, till
>> the last day he lived; and they're still pouring money into pockets of
>> whoever that owns the rights to his works. A testament to the fact that
>> American society has not taken one step away from total ignorance and
>> isolation.
>>
>> His books are written for Sheep. For the exact way through which Sheep
>> look at "science". And sheep, American people have been and are, and
>> will be in the future as long as their isolation from reality is
>> maintained.
>
> Like you said, you're not a business. Carl Sagan was a 'TVeee
> Scientists'.
>
> That means every time a cow burbed or an apple fell from a tree the
> media would call him and he was ON THE AIR...selling books.
>
> He'd be on the radio stations all over the united states talking on the
> phone
> and showing up at TV News stations all over the usa.
>
> They are the ones who sold his books.
>
> Each radion and tvee stations has millions of viewers and listners.
>
>
> dat is how you sell books.
>
> Everybody at FoxNews automatically has a number one best seller.
>
> And it's not because the book is good.
>
> "These Boots Are Made For Walking." was a hit because
> Frank Sinatra made the radio stations play it oven and over and over and
> over....
>
>
>

True, but Velikovsky did all that without the TV and radio, 50 times
better than Sagan... So it sure says something about his formula :)

It was simply based on the reality of who Americans are, not on science.
So it won big time and this pissed Sagan up so much....

Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> On 12/16/2023 11:30 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Carl Sagan didn't use the word 'tree', he used it's composition: hydrogen and methane.
> >
> > He is not allowed to say the word...'tree'.
>
> What!... You son of a gun. So he didn't say "tree" and you quoted him as
> saying "tree."
>
> That explains it then :)
>
> Hahhha :)

It's just you are not at a level of understanding 'what a tree is'.

Here is the full quote from Carl Sagan:

"Congealing and warming, the Earth released the methane,
ammonia, water and hydrogen gases that had been trapped
within, forming the primitive atmosphere and the first oceans." --Carl
Sagan

'methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen' come from a 'tree'.

In layman's terms, The tree formed
the primitive atmosphere and the first oceans.

For example: ammonia comes from the leaf that fell on the ground and
decayed.

I could go on and on but it would be...perpetual.

You're just going to have to learn about methane and hydrogen on your
own.

I no longer teach at Harvard.

you're going to have to...read a book.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On 12/17/2023 3:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> "Congealing and warming, the Earth released the methane,
> ammonia, water and hydrogen gases that had been trapped
> within, forming the primitive atmosphere and the first oceans." --Carl
> Sagan

Yes, that sounds authentic.

Because the surface of the earth had to get cooled down enough so water
wouldn't boil and evaporate on it, to oceans to appear. Then in that
water, at specific temperatures, life got a chance to form, some of
which later ended up as trees a long time later, and some of them became
early humans and cro-magnons of today, and some are presently the Modern
Human.

The cro-magnons have as much chance to stay around as their Nazi dicks
do. So they're on their way out also.

When Modern Human finds a way to create edible large molecules
containing what its metabolism requires to run, then we'll begin to stop
harming trees and other animals. Then a better balance is maintained,
with not even a memory of cro-magnons around. Those will be better days.

On 12/17/2023 3:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> I no longer teach at Harvard.
>
> you're going to have to...read a book.

What subject did you teach at Harvard?

Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> On 12/17/2023 3:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > I no longer teach at Harvard.
> >
> > you're going to have to...read a book.
>
> What subject did you teach at Harvard?

How To Start Your Own Mafia

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On 12/17/2023 5:28 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>> On 12/17/2023 3:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> I no longer teach at Harvard.
>>>
>>> you're going to have to...read a book.
>>
>> What subject did you teach at Harvard?
>
> How To Start Your Own Mafia
>
>
>
>
>
>

I bet they believed everything you said, with that accent :)

Physfitfreak wrote:
>
> On 12/17/2023 5:28 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/17/2023 3:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> I no longer teach at Harvard.
> >>>
> >>> you're going to have to...read a book.
> >>
> >> What subject did you teach at Harvard?
> >
> > How To Start Your Own Mafia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I bet they believed everything you said, with that accent :)

If you buy a McDonald's franchise, it is by Mac law that it is
far from another MacDonalds in the area.

If you open up a Pizza place..
and a guy opens up
a pizza place across the street from you...
by M law you have a right
to burn down dat guys pizza place.

(without da accent)

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On 12/17/2023 11:26 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>> On 12/17/2023 5:28 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/17/2023 3:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> I no longer teach at Harvard.
>>>>>
>>>>> you're going to have to...read a book.
>>>>
>>>> What subject did you teach at Harvard?
>>>
>>> How To Start Your Own Mafia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I bet they believed everything you said, with that accent :)
>
> If you buy a McDonald's franchise, it is by Mac law that it is
> far from another MacDonalds in the area.
>
> If you open up a Pizza place..
> and a guy opens up
> a pizza place across the street from you...
> by M law you have a right
> to burn down dat guys pizza place.
>
>
> (without da accent)
>
>
>

Makes good sense.

What if a guy comes to sci.physics to use his background, which is
physics, to conduct meaningful conversation with others there with
physics backgrounds and perhaps more likely similar interests, and then,
another guy, say, someone who taught at Harvard Mafia operations, comes
in very close to sci.physics, actually inside it, and begin telling
everyone how to start their own Mafia?

Would that be a violation of that same Mafia "pizza place" law?

On 12/17/2023 4:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>> On 12/16/2023 11:30 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Carl Sagan didn't use the word 'tree', he used it's composition: hydrogen and methane.
>>>
>>> He is not allowed to say the word...'tree'.
>>
>> What!... You son of a gun. So he didn't say "tree" and you quoted him as
>> saying "tree."
>>
>> That explains it then :)
>>
>> Hahhha :)
>
> It's just you are not at a level of understanding 'what a tree is'.
>
> Here is the full quote from Carl Sagan:
>
>
> "Congealing and warming, the Earth released the methane,
> ammonia, water and hydrogen gases that had been trapped
> within, forming the primitive atmosphere and the first oceans." --Carl
> Sagan
>
> 'methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen' come from a 'tree'.
>
So you admit Carl Sagan didn't say the primitive atmosphere and oceans
came from trees. You did.

Volney wrote:
>
> On 12/17/2023 4:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/16/2023 11:30 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Carl Sagan didn't use the word 'tree', he used it's composition: hydrogen and methane.
> >>>
> >>> He is not allowed to say the word...'tree'.
> >>
> >> What!... You son of a gun. So he didn't say "tree" and you quoted him as
> >> saying "tree."
> >>
> >> That explains it then :)
> >>
> >> Hahhha :)
> >
> > It's just you are not at a level of understanding 'what a tree is'.
> >
> > Here is the full quote from Carl Sagan:
> >
> >
> > "Congealing and warming, the Earth released the methane,
> > ammonia, water and hydrogen gases that had been trapped
> > within, forming the primitive atmosphere and the first oceans." --Carl
> > Sagan
> >
> > 'methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen' come from a 'tree'.
> >
> So you admit Carl Sagan didn't say the primitive atmosphere and oceans
> came from trees. You did.

'the Earth released the methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen gases' is
another word for...trees.

Sagan is not allowed to say the word "trees", so he broke down the
composition of trees and
wrote that instead...but methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen
means...trees!

Sagan is afraid to use the word "God" because his peers would frown on
him for using the word "God".

Trees deliver the water from it's rain forest forming the primitive
atmosphere and the first oceans.

and the rain forest continued to deliver the water through rivers and
keep the ocean liquid.

the first oceans came from trees (science lingo for trees is methane,
ammonia, water and hydrogen gases)

Did anybody get the Noble Prize for saying a metor killed all the
dinosaurs????

No, because it is a lie. and everybody knows it.

Where do trees come from? No one here has the right answer except...me.

I can even point a link that answers the question and yous will still
get it wrong!

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On 12/19/2023 12:45 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>>
>> On 12/17/2023 4:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/16/2023 11:30 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Carl Sagan didn't use the word 'tree', he used it's composition: hydrogen and methane.
>>>>>
>>>>> He is not allowed to say the word...'tree'.
>>>>
>>>> What!... You son of a gun. So he didn't say "tree" and you quoted him as
>>>> saying "tree."
>>>>
>>>> That explains it then :)
>>>>
>>>> Hahhha :)
>>>
>>> It's just you are not at a level of understanding 'what a tree is'.
>>>
>>> Here is the full quote from Carl Sagan:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Congealing and warming, the Earth released the methane,
>>> ammonia, water and hydrogen gases that had been trapped
>>> within, forming the primitive atmosphere and the first oceans." --Carl
>>> Sagan
>>>
>>> 'methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen' come from a 'tree'.
>>>
>> So you admit Carl Sagan didn't say the primitive atmosphere and oceans
>> came from trees. You did.
>
> 'the Earth released the methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen gases' is
> another word for...trees.

You just made that up. No mention of trees.
>
> Sagan is not allowed to say the word "trees",

And who disallowed him from using the word "trees", and why? Again,
that's just garbage you made up.

> so he broke down the
> composition of trees and
> wrote that instead...but methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen
> means...trees!

Those compounds form naturally in the early solar environment, no trees
needed. Look at the gas giant planets.
>
> the first oceans came from trees (science lingo for trees is methane,
> ammonia, water and hydrogen gases)

Again, more garbage you made up.
>
Your attempt to create the most absurd "theory" possible, that trees
formed the oceans, is admirable, but still doesn't beat even more absurd
"theories", such as the entire universe is some cosmic plutonium atom,
as well as a few other beauts. The judges give you a 9 in effort!

Volney wrote:
>
> On 12/19/2023 12:45 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Volney wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/17/2023 4:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Physfitfreak wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/16/2023 11:30 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> Carl Sagan didn't use the word 'tree', he used it's composition: hydrogen and methane.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He is not allowed to say the word...'tree'.
> >>>>
> >>>> What!... You son of a gun. So he didn't say "tree" and you quoted him as
> >>>> saying "tree."
> >>>>
> >>>> That explains it then :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Hahhha :)
> >>>
> >>> It's just you are not at a level of understanding 'what a tree is'.
> >>>
> >>> Here is the full quote from Carl Sagan:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Congealing and warming, the Earth released the methane,
> >>> ammonia, water and hydrogen gases that had been trapped
> >>> within, forming the primitive atmosphere and the first oceans." --Carl
> >>> Sagan
> >>>
> >>> 'methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen' come from a 'tree'.
> >>>
> >> So you admit Carl Sagan didn't say the primitive atmosphere and oceans
> >> came from trees. You did.
> >
> > 'the Earth released the methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen gases' is
> > another word for...trees.
>
> You just made that up. No mention of trees.
> >
> > Sagan is not allowed to say the word "trees",
>
> And who disallowed him from using the word "trees", and why? Again,
> that's just garbage you made up.
>
> > so he broke down the
> > composition of trees and
> > wrote that instead...but methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen
> > means...trees!
>
> Those compounds form naturally in the early solar environment, no trees
> needed. Look at the gas giant planets.
> >
> > the first oceans came from trees (science lingo for trees is methane,
> > ammonia, water and hydrogen gases)
>
> Again, more garbage you made up.
> >
> Your attempt to create the most absurd "theory" possible, that trees
> formed the oceans, is admirable, but still doesn't beat even more absurd
> "theories", such as the entire universe is some cosmic plutonium atom,
> as well as a few other beauts. The judges give you a 9 in effort!

Are you forgetting that all the fishes in the ocean come from the leaves
on the trees?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Volney wrote:
> >
> > On 12/19/2023 12:45 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Volney wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 12/17/2023 4:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>> Physfitfreak wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 12/16/2023 11:30 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>>> Carl Sagan didn't use the word 'tree', he used it's composition: hydrogen and methane.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> He is not allowed to say the word...'tree'.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What!... You son of a gun. So he didn't say "tree" and you quoted him as
> > >>>> saying "tree."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> That explains it then :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hahhha :)
> > >>>
> > >>> It's just you are not at a level of understanding 'what a tree is'.
> > >>>
> > >>> Here is the full quote from Carl Sagan:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> "Congealing and warming, the Earth released the methane,
> > >>> ammonia, water and hydrogen gases that had been trapped
> > >>> within, forming the primitive atmosphere and the first oceans." --Carl
> > >>> Sagan
> > >>>
> > >>> 'methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen' come from a 'tree'.
> > >>>
> > >> So you admit Carl Sagan didn't say the primitive atmosphere and oceans
> > >> came from trees. You did.
> > >
> > > 'the Earth released the methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen gases' is
> > > another word for...trees.
> >
> > You just made that up. No mention of trees.
> > >
> > > Sagan is not allowed to say the word "trees",
> >
> > And who disallowed him from using the word "trees", and why? Again,
> > that's just garbage you made up.
> >
> > > so he broke down the
> > > composition of trees and
> > > wrote that instead...but methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen
> > > means...trees!
> >
> > Those compounds form naturally in the early solar environment, no trees
> > needed. Look at the gas giant planets.
> > >
> > > the first oceans came from trees (science lingo for trees is methane,
> > > ammonia, water and hydrogen gases)
> >
> > Again, more garbage you made up.
> > >
> > Your attempt to create the most absurd "theory" possible, that trees
> > formed the oceans, is admirable, but still doesn't beat even more absurd
> > "theories", such as the entire universe is some cosmic plutonium atom,
> > as well as a few other beauts. The judges give you a 9 in effort!
>
> Are you forgetting that all the fishes in the ocean come from the leaves
> on the trees?

"99 percent of the Earth’s atmo¬
sphere is of biological origin." -Carl Sagan

bi·o·log·i·cal
/?bi?'läj?k(?)l/
adjective
1.
relating to biology or living organisms.
botanical

bo·tan·i·cal
/b?'tan?k(?)l/
adjective
adjective: botanical
relating to plants.

A tree is a plant.

In other words...

"99 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere is of trees origin."

I'll go one step further...

In fact, the trees in the rain forest which covered the whole entire
earth at that time, there was sooo much rain from the rain forest that
it drowned the earth and covered it mostly with with water.

All the trees and plants found itself in...water.

That was the Rain Age.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On 12/19/2023 1:41 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Volney wrote:

>> Your attempt to create the most absurd "theory" possible, that trees
>> formed the oceans, is admirable, but still doesn't beat even more absurd
>> "theories", such as the entire universe is some cosmic plutonium atom,
>> as well as a few other beauts. The judges give you a 9 in effort!
>
>
> Are you forgetting that all the fishes in the ocean come from the leaves
> on the trees?
>
Your attempt to beat the cosmic plutonium atom absurdity by saying fish
are leaves was valiant but still falls short. The judges, however, now
award you a 9.5 in effort.