Soyuz ready with Galileo satellites for milestone launch

International space cooperation will be highlighted, . . .

International cooperation may renew interest in space science, if not hampered by lock-step, model-driven consensus opinions - like the Bilderberg model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.

The Bilderberg solar model, Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968)

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09

Oliver you have made it quite clear that you think there is something you call neutron repulsion and it stops the formation of Black Holes. If Black Holes are stopped by NR then Neutron stars couldn't exist either. Of course there are all those claims that NR is causing galaxies to fragment and you spammed the site with that dozens of times.

If it has the range to fragment galaxies and the strength and range to block the formation of ANY black holes then it not only is strong enough to stop the formation of neutron stars but also ANYTHING that is held together by gravity.

For NR to stop the formation of Black Holes and cause the fragmentation of galaxies then it is stronger than gravity at both the range of a dozen kilometers and at kiloparsecs. This means that not only does it shatter galaxies but they could not form in first place. Planets could not form and ALL gravity bound objects would be sundered by this hypothetical galaxy busting Black Hole blocking force.

Ethelred

Science addresses REALITY. False science continues advocating models that have been falsified by data and observations.

The Bilderberg model of Earth's heat source as a giant, homogeneous ball of hydrogen, steadily heated by H-fusion "in equilibrium."

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

Was repeatedly falsified by experimental data on:

a.) Solar flares
b.) The solar wind
c.) The photosphere
d.) The Galileo Mission to Jupiter
h.) Analysis of meteorites and planets
e.) The Apollo Mission to the Moon
f.) Neutron-capture cross sections
g.) Nuclear rest mass data, but . . .

Ignored because the AGW fable is based on the Bilderberg model of constant heat arriving from the Sun.

Data that falsify SSM and AGW are summarized in three papers:

1. Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002)

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

2. ESA SP-517, 345-348 (2003)

http://arxiv.org/...410717v1

3. APERION J, in press

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

oliver, you have absolutely no right to talk about reality, you left that behind you a long time ago, along with your honor and dignity and integrity. your lies are sickening and no one here believes in your nonsense except you and kio. youve got no training in any of the fields you claim are wrong and experts have shown you are wrong repeatdley. Get real, its sad how low youve fallen. no, pathetic.

Science addresses REALITY. False science continues advocating models that have been falsified by data and observations.

Absolutely. So stop with your false science and your false accusations about others.

Was repeatedly falsified by experimental data on:
a.) Solar flares

No. Nor do they support you.

b.) The solar wind

Fits the standard models.

c.) The photosphere

Which couldn't exist with a Neutron Star in it. But DOES fit the standard models.

d.) The Galileo Mission to Jupiter

Which does not support your claims.

q]h.) Analysis of meteorites and planets Support the standard models.

e.) The Apollo Mission to the Moon

Supports the standard models.

f.) Neutron-capture cross sections

Fits the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

g.) Nuclear rest mass data

Fits the PEP. Which you refuse to address in any way.>>

Ignored because the AGW fable is based on the Bilderberg model of constant heat arriving from the Sun.

Something YOU made up recently in your continuing attack on rational science. An exceeding bizarre excursion into rampant paranoid nonsense. Not a one those people give a damn about your ridiculous self contradictory theory.

And few scientists think or claim the Sun doesn't have variation.

And that another attempt to evade answering my question. SO here it is again.

You have made it quite clear that you think there is something you call neutron repulsion and it stops the formation of Black Holes. If Black Holes are stopped by NR then Neutron stars couldn't exist either. Of course there are all those claims that NR is causing galaxies to fragment and you spammed the site with that dozens of times.>>

If it has the range to fragment galaxies and the strength and range to block the formation of ANY black holes then it not only is strong enough to stop the formation of neutron stars but also ANYTHING that is held together by gravity.

For NR to stop the formation of Black Holes and cause the fragmentation of galaxies then it is stronger than gravity at both the range of a dozen kilometers and at kiloparsecs. This means that not only does it shatter galaxies but they could not form in first place. Planets could not form and ALL gravity bound objects would be sundered by this hypothetical galaxy busting Black Hole blocking force.

Anytime you want to stop evading out of cowardice feel free to answer the questions instead of attacking people.

Ethelred