Water burns!
 

Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:
I'd say your postulate is flawed because you don't maintain a constant
frame of reference.

No, I'm saying maintaining a constant frame of reference
is impossible because all possible frames of reference
are constantly changing.

Those observations are not made from the same frame
of reference and cannot be directly compared.

My point exactly. Why does man continue to ignorantly
attempt the impossible?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Jim Higgins wrote:
Your point being what? That science is screwed up? My point
regarding that is that science constantly refines and improves.

Doesn't the need for a constant redefinition and
improvement process prove that science is screwed up?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Mike Coslo wrote:

...
I believe that the hypothesis was wrong. minimum size for a life form
doesn't make it quite as far as a theory to me. Based on what we knew t
the time, it wasn't a bad guess.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

A theory is only a guess which appears to have substance and proof
behind it ... too often, this proof and substance evaporates ...

JS

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
Those observations are not made from the same frame
of reference and cannot be directly compared.

My point exactly. Why does man continue to ignorantly
attempt the impossible?

Cecil:

Wait a minute bub!

Are you still attempting to apply and use frames of reference NOT
approved by jim? ;-)

Regards,
JS

Water burns!
 

John Smith I wrote:
Are you still attempting to apply and use frames of reference NOT
approved by jim? ;-)

This is similar to the problem that John Harrison faced
when he tried to design a clock for ocean travel. The
frame of reference was continuously changing so he had
to give up on his original design. It is way past time
for homo sapiens to give up on any notion of an absolute
frame of reference in a relativistic universe. The nail
that they drive in the floor under their feet is getting
longer with each passing day. Why can't they see that?

Such a thing as absolute references simply do not exist
in the universe of relativity. That gives a whole new
meaning to, "There are no absolutes!". Of course, I cannot
be absolutely certain ... what will happen on an absolute
foundation of jello ...
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
frame of reference in a relativistic universe. The nail
that they drive in the floor under their feet is getting
longer with each passing day. Why can't they see that?
...

Cecil:

Such is the lot of man, and this certainly includes myself ... from time
to time we are lucky to even catch a glimpse of reality ... we move
towards the future, albeit it ... slowly.

Regards,
JS

Water burns!
 

John Smith I wrote:
Such is the lot of man, and this certainly includes myself ... from time
to time we are lucky to even catch a glimpse of reality ... we move
towards the future, albeit it ... slowly.

Why are some of the supporters of the scientific method
unwilling to apply the scientific method to the scientific
method?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Sounds like you shouldn't bother trying to post there.

With topics like "Water burns" and "Gaussian antennas", I seldom do.

I was talking about s.p.r where your idea of
some Omniscient Supreme Science God handing down
scientific theories that are never wrong might
not be welcome.

You mean using the scientific definition of words when talking
science and not the TV cop show definition?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

This is similar to the problem that John Harrison faced
when he tried to design a clock for ocean travel. The
frame of reference was continuously changing so he had
to give up on his original design. It is way past time
for homo sapiens to give up on any notion of an absolute
frame of reference in a relativistic universe. The nail
that they drive in the floor under their feet is getting
longer with each passing day. Why can't they see that?

Such a thing as absolute references simply do not exist
in the universe of relativity. That gives a whole new
meaning to, "There are no absolutes!". Of course, I cannot
be absolutely certain ... what will happen on an absolute
foundation of jello ...

That is your opinion of Harrison's problem. I think the rest of us
would look at it quite differently. He made a clock to carry the
reference with the traveler. And the traveler could sync the clock by
telescopic observation using Jovian tables they had with them if they
were at a stable anchor. Almost an absolute reference I'd say. At
least for it's day.

Remember, we aren't talking about high velocity here, just position
changes, so the reference is not changing to any great degree.

tom
K0TAR