I am one of those writing in fortran happily. The vast majority of stellar physics (and all stellar evolution) codes I have seen are in fortran. (And no I am not that old...)
So my take is that 'real science' is made with fortran. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

The vast majority of stellar physics (and all stellar evolution) codes I have seen are in fortran. (And no I am not that old...)

You may not be, but I'll bet the code is. The science and engineering code base is in Fortran because it was originally written in Fortran when that was the language of choice, and it has been carefully debugged over a long period of time. And there's lots of it. Don't fix it if it ain't broke, eh?

You may not be, but I'll bet the code is. The science and engineering code base is in Fortran because it was originally written in Fortran when that was the language of choice, and it has been carefully debugged over a long period of time. And there's lots of it. Don't fix it if it ain't broke, eh?

Quite true of course but it also means that people like me working with those codes, supposedly adding physics but mostly adding bugs to them, work in fortran and as result program in fortran when developping original code (Of course there is the odd black sheep insisting on using C or some of those other new gadgets).
I guess it is a cultural thing like measuring dimensions and mass of stars in centimeters and grams.
Who said scientists were rational?

This is probably uncalled for, and definite continuing the off-topic direction of this thread, but I couldn't resist sharing the Hacker's Dictionary entry for FORTRAN.

http://pebbles.eps.mcgill.ca/jargon/....html#Fortrash

Fortrash /for'trash/ n.

Hackerism for the FORTRAN (FORmula TRANslator) language, referring to its primitive design, gross and irregular syntax, limited control constructs, and slippery, exception-filled semantics.

__________________
Jeff Schwarz
__________________________________________________
Argh!! They booby-trapped their sun!!****--Invader ZIM

cosmicdave,

before we wandered down the happy path of FORTRAN memories, there were a couple of challenges back on page 7 or so of this thread:

1. What specific evidence do you have that the AGC could not have done its job? If you do not have any, do you retract this claim?

2. The blue glow is compatible with sunshine's interaction with optical characteristics of the CM window, and can be observed at times when the Earth was not visible in the window. Do you dispute this? If so, why? If not, do you retract your claim that the CM/LM stayed in low Earth orbit?

3. Do you understand that the apparent path of the Apollo spacecraft was quite different than that of a LEO spacecraft? And, therefore, the Apollo spacecraft was *not* in LEO during the entire mission as alleged?

It's been fun shooting the breeze, cosmicdave, but it's time to stand and deliver. And, remember, "I was wrong about xxx" is a perfectly good answer.

GO TOs and ENTRYs have been the bane of my existence. They're a real pain to have around when you're trying to translate the code into another programming language, such as C/C++. Fortunately, we cleaned those all out of the FORTRAN code we used for MICA 1.x.

1. What specific evidence do you have that the AGC could not have done its job? If you do not have any, do you retract this claim?

As well as specific, the evidence must also be relevant.

The blue glow ...

Mr. Cosnette's original claim was that no one had provided an answer for the blue glow. At this point it is no longer truthful to say an answer has not been provided. Mr. Cosnette may not like the answer. He may not agree with it. But the truth is that he has acknowledged that an answer has been given.

Do you understand that the apparent path of the Apollo spacecraft was quite different than that of a LEO spacecraft?

Now that he has shown he can consult with outside experts regarding orbital mechanics, I'm sure he will have no excuse for getting any orbit topics wrong. As I said, I wonder if he has asked his expert whether his theories are plausible.

Last night I and some friends watched the ISS fly overhead in low earth orbit. It was brighter than Venus at times and most definitely moving. The entire sky transit took about four minutes. Really hard to miss.

You moon hoax-sters really need to get a life! You're absolutely disgusting. If you truly believe the moon landings were a hoax then you're total morons. But my opinion is that you're really not that stupid, and that you're only in it for the notoriety and the "money for nothing". I'm sure people enjoy arguing with you, but I say why bother. You're too stupid to listen to reason, and you're too stupid to understand science. If HST or Clementine HAD the resolving power to photograph the lunar landers, you'd just say they were fake. Buzz Aldrin had the perfect response to you morons - a perfectly placed right hook! You moon hoax-sters are a pathetic disgrace, and a total insult to all those great people that worked for the manned spaceflight program in the 60's. Their acheivements were truly remarkable. You traitors can go peddle your moronic, pathetic crap to the Jerry Springer nation.

You are possibly in violation of at least several of the BA's rules, PA. I can certainly understand the sentiment, however. There are very good reasons for the rules here, mainly having to do with the presence of children and the nature of the BA's work, but they need not pertain everywhere. I know of a couple of message boards where the rules are somewhat less stringent, and where moon hoaxers are regularly given the thrashing they so richly deserve:
<a href=http://pub97.ezboard.com/bnuclearspace>Nuclear Space online community</a>
ufoolishness</s> ufology

Oh, and one more thing, PA... your rant is misdirected anyway. Virtually all the "regulars" here on the BABB are staunchly in the anti-hoax camp.

I'm with the others. The sentiment is right, but the tone is a bit harsh for this forum. We try to keep it polite here at least.

But money is not the only, and probably not the biggest, motivation for hoax believers. Distrust and paranoia, a psychological need for recognition, and religious and other beliefs have as much to do with it. There's definitely a huckster attitude involved, but really I doubt these people are getting rich over it.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

So, why did PA reach back seven months to find a thread to use for his (so far one-and-only) rant? Uh, post?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

This is a Cosmic Dave thread and therefore worth bringing up at all possible opportunities.

I understand the emotions that prompted such a post, but I take wisdom from JayUtah and others who show we don't need rants, we've got logic on our side.

patrioticamerican, while many of the people here may agree with you, I strongly urge you to read the FAQ, linked at the top of every page here. I will not tolerate personal attacks.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

Hi folks,

Sorry I got so carried away with my post, uh, yes rant, but as you can obviously tell those people (moon landing hoax-sters) make my blood boil. As I said, I think Buzz Aldrin's reponse to "those people" was great and right on the mark. I stumbled onto this site by accident - I did a Yahoo search for Clementine photos, and what did I get but a page full of links to REALLY bad astronomy (moon hoax-sters, Hoaglund, and the like) and it really disgusted me. What bothers me the most is that there's a lot of gullible, ignorant people out there that will believe everything they read, and to me it is an incredible insult to this great country and the awesome achievements of Apollo that "those people" are pushing that garbage.

Anyway, I'll try to lighten up! Keep up the good work.

I can understand how half-truths and misconceptions masquerading as some higher wisdom can provoke unkind feelings. But we have to be the voice of reason, and that sometimes means staying calm in the face of irrationality.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Not that we always succeed in that... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

By the way, I know the name calling, et. al., is not allowed on this board. But I'm the type that believes in calling a spade a spade, and not pussyfooting around when it comes to defending something that I really believe in - something that really means a lot to me. If some feel my post was a bit harsh, that's fine, we're all entitled to our opinions, unless it's sedition. But I stand by everything I said because that's how I feel. The people that propagate that garbage truly are a disgrace to their country, and they really should know that. I'm curious to know what motivates them to believe (if they really do) in such malicious nonsense.

Nobody seems to have a problem with me calling Bill Kaysing, the Dark Lord. The problem comes when personal attacks are made to people, who are posting on the board.

That's why we use many terms to describe the spades. Jay coined the term conspiracist. We use to use the term hoax believer (HB) to describe them, although that was thrown into doubt when we weren't sure if all the conspiracists were HBs or jsut bilkers. So the term hoax proponent (HP) came up. Also, something about calling them twinkies.

You think you're annoyed? Try this site.

This particular thread was one about a famous troll who succeded in giving us all heart problems. When they spout circularities and tautologies and straw men and fail to realise they shouldn't be doing this, we want to... er... be unkind.

Particularly angering is when they declare themselves the self-appointed epxerts of all related fields and think that they know better than people who actually have proper qualifications. I can't imagine anything more insulting than Ralph Rene, who has not a degree to speak of, declaring himself to be a physicist and then saying that proper physicists are wrong.

Try here.

Some people are naturally paranoid. Others have religious reasons, some I've encountered outside the US just like feeling they're being anti-American.

Thanks for the info. Hopefully, the "lunartic fringe" will always remain a very insignificant part of the populace, and will continue to dwindle as intelligence and reason triumph over ignorance and paranoia. Despite a lot of evidence to the contrary, hopefully we're moving in that direction!