|
Water burns!
art wrote:
On 16 Jun, 09:45, wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: But what if the post gets cross posted to a group such as sci.physics.research where there is a greater percentage of educated readers than r.r.a.a and semantic game playing isn't allowed? Sounds like you shouldn't bother trying to post there. With topics like "Water burns" and "Gaussian antennas", I seldom do. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Jim, you have posted 1000+ in newsgroups starting with "sci" and as with this group you have never met a person that you could like. Seems like the word babble,idiot a few swear words, moron,etc is what you base your posts around. It does appear to me that the aviation people took you at your word when you said you wanted to be buried in Chicago when you said you would not post in that newsgroup again. Now you have rissen from the dead where you can hurt as many people as you can in this newsgroup with your own style of babble. Why do you wake up in the morning? There surely something in the World where you could be happy instead of hanging around here. Find out where that place is and go there and this time work on building up some credability in your enunciations if your ideals are to have a sensible conversation instead of abusive one liners that you now thrive upon. To use a life like the way you are squandering yours is a very sad thing to watch. It's nice to see a babbler like you is so obsessed with what I may have posted to USENET that you have spent the time to research me. Now, if only you were able to read... Actually, it was in sci.physics where I said: "Personally, I'm going to be buried in Chicago because that's where the dead rise from the grave every election day." Since little you post has much of any relation to reality, it is not surprising you botched this also. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote in news:blSci.19753$C96.3758
@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net: John Smith I wrote: I would hold back just a bit on that "theory." Quoted from: http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=221 "Three scientific studies that have recently appeared may well spell the beginning of the end of global warming theory:" -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com As a group whose defined mission is "to dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis", I give them credit for not hiding what they have already decided. But they are without a doubt a political organization. Herre is Some info on them: Formed in 1997, is currently hosted and financed by Consumer Alert, member and organizer of the National Consumer Coalition. The Coalition publishes the bi-weekly "Cooler Heads Newsletter" in conjunction with the Competitve Enterprise Institute. Current members a 60 Plus Association, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (junkscience.com), Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Americans for Tax Reform, Association of Concerned Taxpayers, Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Capital Research Center, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Consumer Alert, Defenders of Property Rights, Foundation for American Liberty, Frontiers of Freedom, Fund for a New Generation, The Heartland Institute, National Center for Policy Analysis, National Center for Public Policy Research, Political Economy Research Center, Public Interest Institute, Small Business Survival Committee, United Seniors Association, and Women for Tax Reform. Reading the articles was a little like reading Creationist effluvia. 1. Decide your desired outcome. 2. Anything that appears to discredit your opponents position is trotted out to do just that. 3. Pull out old research. The latest on this site was from 2001, although there was stuff that was over 12 years old. 3. But for heavens sake, don't apply the same metric to yourself! I've issued a challenge before (not that anyone would be paying much attention to my challenges, but whatever. Heat retention in an atmosphere will vary in relation to the percentage of certain components of that atmosphere. This is an experimentally proven fact. Not a theory nor hypothesis, but a fact. These gases, which vary in the amount of heat retention they afford, are collectively known as "greenhouse gases". Given the above as a fact, (unless you wish to dispute the entire concept) perform research that shows that the effect does not exist. You fail if you call politics. All that is saying is that You are the one with a political agenda. Note that the "you" in this is the group doing the research, not you personally. Hasn't happened yet. The political groups such as the Cooler Heads Coalition just do the same as the Creationists and Intelligent Design crowd. I'm expecting debate challenges soon. Everyone knows that we can change scientific fact by debate! ;^) BTW, a most interesting side effect of the Water Vapor feedback, the report from 7 years ago that the CHC calls "new", brings up an interesting dilemma. If the ocean temperature rises, the cloud cover changes to allow more heat to escape. If this mechanism occurs, and prevents temoeratures from rising, why would the oceans rise in temperature at all? Seems like either the feeedback should keep land and ocean temps pretty constant. But the temperature seem to rise, because they know that a 1 deg C ocean temp rise causes clouds to compensate by losing more heat. This cannot happen, because global warming doesn't exist, right? - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote in news:edTci.14001$2v1.2035
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net: John Smith I wrote: I draw no firm conclusions on global warming and have little hope science will prevail in the near future. Here's probably all you need to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png Note the temperature today is ~6 deg *below* the peak temperature of 130,000 years ago, ~3 deg below the peak of 240,000 years ago, ~5 deg below the peak of 340,000 years ago, and ~2 degrees below the peak of 410,000 years ago. As far as natural global warming cycle peak temperatures go, the present one is relatively cool - plus the fact that it peaked 8000 years ago indicating that we are already in the next ice age cycle. Just ask the folks in Denver. :-) Cecil, we both know that temperature changes will affect different areas differently. When people trot out specifics, I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh spouting out "So much for Global Warming" during a brief cold snap during one of the warmer winters recently. Some places, such as Ireland (where palm trees grow in certain places) and Great Britain, could become significantly colder if the Gulf stream is diverted or dissapates due to warming effects. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... Cecil Moore wrote in news:edTci.14001$2v1.2035 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.net: John Smith I wrote: I draw no firm conclusions on global warming and have little hope science will prevail in the near future. Here's probably all you need to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png Note the temperature today is ~6 deg *below* the peak temperature of 130,000 years ago, ~3 deg below the peak of 240,000 years ago, ~5 deg below the peak of 340,000 years ago, and ~2 degrees below the peak of 410,000 years ago. As far as natural global warming cycle peak temperatures go, the present one is relatively cool - plus the fact that it peaked 8000 years ago indicating that we are already in the next ice age cycle. Just ask the folks in Denver. :-) Cecil, we both know that temperature changes will affect different areas differently. When people trot out specifics, I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh spouting out "So much for Global Warming" during a brief cold snap during one of the warmer winters recently. Some places, such as Ireland (where palm trees grow in certain places) and Great Britain, could become significantly colder if the Gulf stream is diverted or dissapates due to warming effects. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - The UK is currently enjoying record high temperatures and lots of fine weather, when it isn't raining. If the Gulf Stream or North Atlantic Drift disipate, we'll just have to go back to building coal fired power stations to warm the place up a bit more. Hey, we're an island, we don't have to worry about the rest of the world. Mike G0ULI |
Water burns!
Jim Kelley wrote:
It usually turns out that he used the one which allows whatever he said to be true in some context. You are the pot calling the kettle black, Jim. Your narrow definitions from the field of physics are not even accepted within the RF engineering community. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
One might make a pretty good case that since the scientific method is inherent to science and to being a scientist that those who abandon it are no longer scientists. OTOH, one might make a pretty good case that those who worship at the alter of the scientific method have simply traded one religion for another and are no longer scientists. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Mike Kaliski wrote:
... The UK is currently enjoying record high temperatures and lots of fine weather, when it isn't raining. If the Gulf Stream or North Atlantic Drift disipate, we'll just have to go back to building coal fired power stations to warm the place up a bit more. Hey, we're an island, we don't have to worry about the rest of the world. Mike G0ULI Ever study the dynamics of an ammonia refrigeration system? These primitive refrigeration units are found in most travel trailers and land yachts, you actually provide a propane flame to cool the interior of your refrigerator ... As parts of the world grow warmer, parts will grow much cooler as earths' weather dynamics strive to maintain a balance, if you avg out the warmed vs. the cooled, you will not even be able to note a significant difference--however, if you live in one or the other, you will notice it! JS |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
In any case it strikes me that allowing The Law to be broken pretty much wrecks literally everything else ... The law of conservation of energy that my Dad was taught was broken by the atomic bomb. Of course, the energy in matter, that had been previously erroneously omitted, was quickly added. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
art wrote:
... To use a life like the way you are squandering yours is a very sad thing to watch. Art: You have an excellent approach to logic ... JS |
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 |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
Tom Ring wrote:
... PLONK! I love getting rid of idiots. tom K0TAR Could be dangerous in your particular case, hope it doesn't lead to any self-destructive behavior ... however, I can understand, my enjoyment is the sound of idiots leaving--don't let the door hit 'ya on the bum. JS |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote in news:8SXci.1489$vi5.246
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net: Jim Higgins wrote: In any case it strikes me that allowing The Law to be broken pretty much wrecks literally everything else ... The law of conservation of energy that my Dad was taught was broken by the atomic bomb. Of course, the energy in matter, that had been previously erroneously omitted, was quickly added. What on earth was it that he was taught? I certainly wasn't around then, but any universe that didn't conserve energy would quickly pull all the available energy from (probably) the first extraction of energy, and then would soon enter it's lowest possible energy state. Or else possibly become a continuous kaboom if unlimited energy was available. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote in news:cXXci.178$Rw1.115
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net: 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? No, it proves that science is willing to admit when it is incorrect, and likes to self correct. Respectfully, I might note that you seem to be trying to have it both ways in all this. You want certainty, you profess skepticism. But you insist that because science has been wrong, that it must always be wrong, or at least we must assume that it is probably wrong, so don't believe it.some science somewhere must be correct at some point. Otherwise we might as well say things are like they are because God wants them that way. We are then sure, and all is well Skepticism when taken to extremes, bears an unsettling resemblance to faith. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
"Mike Kaliski" wrote in
: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... Cecil Moore wrote in news:edTci.14001$2v1.2035 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.net: John Smith I wrote: I draw no firm conclusions on global warming and have little hope science will prevail in the near future. Here's probably all you need to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png Note the temperature today is ~6 deg *below* the peak temperature of 130,000 years ago, ~3 deg below the peak of 240,000 years ago, ~5 deg below the peak of 340,000 years ago, and ~2 degrees below the peak of 410,000 years ago. As far as natural global warming cycle peak temperatures go, the present one is relatively cool - plus the fact that it peaked 8000 years ago indicating that we are already in the next ice age cycle. Just ask the folks in Denver. :-) Cecil, we both know that temperature changes will affect different areas differently. When people trot out specifics, I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh spouting out "So much for Global Warming" during a brief cold snap during one of the warmer winters recently. Some places, such as Ireland (where palm trees grow in certain places) and Great Britain, could become significantly colder if the Gulf stream is diverted or dissapates due to warming effects. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - The UK is currently enjoying record high temperatures and lots of fine weather, when it isn't raining. If the Gulf Stream or North Atlantic Drift disipate, we'll just have to go back to building coal fired power stations to warm the place up a bit more. Hey, we're an island, we don't have to worry about the rest of the world. Well, let us hope that it doesn't happen, and you folks across the pond enjoy decent weather for years to come. But I'm sure it isn't lost on you all just how far north you are! If the Gulf stream relocates or dissapates, the results could be pretty devastating! |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote in news:QKXci.1488$vi5.780
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net: Jim Higgins wrote: One might make a pretty good case that since the scientific method is inherent to science and to being a scientist that those who abandon it are no longer scientists. OTOH, one might make a pretty good case that those who worship at the alter of the scientific method have simply traded one religion for another and are no longer scientists. That is a common argument of Creationists, Cecil. Many even clims that Evolutionism is a religion. Seems weird to me. I wouldn't pay a whole lot of attention to it beyond my considered opinion that it is coorect, but the fundies keep yappin' about it! 8^) - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
On 16 Jun, 20:27, Mike Coslo wrote:
"Mike Kaliski" wrote : "Mike Coslo" wrote in message . 136... Cecil Moore wrote in news:edTci.14001$2v1.2035 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.net: John Smith I wrote: I draw no firm conclusions on global warming and have little hope science will prevail in the near future. Here's probably all you need to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png Note the temperature today is ~6 deg *below* the peak temperature of 130,000 years ago, ~3 deg below the peak of 240,000 years ago, ~5 deg below the peak of 340,000 years ago, and ~2 degrees below the peak of 410,000 years ago. As far as natural global warming cycle peak temperatures go, the present one is relatively cool - plus the fact that it peaked 8000 years ago indicating that we are already in the next ice age cycle. Just ask the folks in Denver. :-) Cecil, we both know that temperature changes will affect different areas differently. When people trot out specifics, I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh spouting out "So much for Global Warming" during a brief cold snap during one of the warmer winters recently. Some places, such as Ireland (where palm trees grow in certain places) and Great Britain, could become significantly colder if the Gulf stream is diverted or dissapates due to warming effects. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - The UK is currently enjoying record high temperatures and lots of fine weather, when it isn't raining. If the Gulf Stream or North Atlantic Drift disipate, we'll just have to go back to building coal fired power stations to warm the place up a bit more. Hey, we're an island, we don't have to worry about the rest of the world. Well, let us hope that it doesn't happen, and you folks across the pond enjoy decent weather for years to come. But I'm sure it isn't lost on you all just how far north you are! If the Gulf stream relocates or dissapates, the results could be pretty devastating!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In the middle of the 19 century the River Thames which is a tidal river froze over in London. The ice was so thick that a fair was held on the ice. If I remember correctly water height varies about 13 feet due to tide change so you can imagine how thick the ice was to hold the tides back. |
Water burns!
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... Cecil Moore wrote in news:8SXci.1489$vi5.246 @newssvr17.news.prodigy.net: Jim Higgins wrote: In any case it strikes me that allowing The Law to be broken pretty much wrecks literally everything else ... The law of conservation of energy that my Dad was taught was broken by the atomic bomb. Of course, the energy in matter, that had been previously erroneously omitted, was quickly added. What on earth was it that he was taught? I certainly wasn't around then, but any universe that didn't conserve energy would quickly pull all the available energy from (probably) the first extraction of energy, and then would soon enter it's lowest possible energy state. Or else possibly become a continuous kaboom if unlimited energy was available. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - I t was often taught that matter was matter and energy was energy even after the developementof the atomic bomb and nuclear reactors.. |
Water burns!
On Jun 16, 1:19 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: It usually turns out that he used the one which allows whatever he said to be true in some context. You are the pot calling the kettle black, Jim. Your narrow definitions from the field of physics are not even accepted within the RF engineering community. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Hi Cecil - I am not in the business of defining physical phenomena. I do occasionally refer to the definitions published in physics books though. From my perspective, these definitions are uniformly consistent with those used in engineering. In any instance where you find them to differ, I would like to suggest that a re-examination of your understanding of the phenomena might help resolve those differences. 73, Jim AC6XG |
Water burns!
"art" wrote in message oups.com... snip In the middle of the 19 century the River Thames which is a tidal river froze over in London. The ice was so thick that a fair was held on the ice. If I remember correctly water height varies about 13 feet due to tide change so you can imagine how thick the ice was to hold the tides back. The ice was 5 feet thick and the river flow was severely obstructed by numerous bridge butresses. The River Thames was so polluted that it was more like liquid mud (actually sewage) than water. The river is now so clean that salmon have been caught swimming in it and the flow is fast enough to prevent a recurrance of the freezing process that allowed the frost fairs to take place. Tidal flow is only rarely interrupted by the Thames Barrier to prevent exceptionally high tidal surges from breaching the river defences in Central London. Mike G0ULI |
Water burns!
"Jimmie D" wrote in
: I t was often taught that matter was matter and energy was energy even after the developementof the atomic bomb and nuclear reactors.. Oy! While that event certainly proved beyond any doubt that th etwo were transferrable, some of those old books must have been waaaayy out of date. In my High school, in the early 70's, we were taught not one thing about anything that would make the world older than around 6000 years. Science class was very strange. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
On Jun 16, 9:05 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
That is your opinion of Harrison's problem. No, that is(was) Harrison's opinion of Harrison's problem. He realized that it was impossible for his first design to work on a ship at sea. I'm not nearly smart enough to have figured it out. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
On Jun 16, 10:07 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
What on earth was it that he was taught? He was taught that the only energy associated with a mass is kinetic and potential. Atomic energy was completely omitted from the principle of conservation of energy back in those days. He was taught: "Energy cannot be created or destroyed." I was taught: "Energy cannot be created or destroyed *by ordinary chemical means*". See how the principle was ammended because it was wrong to begin with? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
On Jun 16, 10:20 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
No, it proves that science is willing to admit when it is incorrect, and likes to self correct. Aha, but the scientific logic goes like this: We have corrected all our past mistakes and now we are corrent. When one corrects N mistakes while an infinity of mistakes go uncorrected, one is not making much progress. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
On Jun 17, 11:47 am, Jim Kelley wrote:
From my perspective, these definitions are uniformly consistent with those used in engineering. Jim, you and others have disagreed with definitions in the IEEE Dictionary and implied it is not worth the paper upon which it is printed. One need only to access Google to verify that fact. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
On Jun 17, 4:27 pm, Jim Higgins wrote:
You are describing the constant advancement of science I was telling you about. My argument is not with you, Jim. It is with the people who assert that scientific theories are never wrong - they just need new boundary conditions imposed from time to time. The evolution of the conservation of energy principle of which I am aware went like this: 1. Energy and matter are separate things and energy cannot be created or destroyed. (1900) 2. Matter can be turned into energy by splitting the atom so energy cannot be created or destroyed by ordinary chemical means. (1950) 3. Let's redefine matter as a form of energy - therefore energy cannot be created or destroyed. (2000) The theory was never wrong. :-) -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
On Jun 17, 4:30 pm, Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil, that was clearly not your point until claiming so was the only way to save yourself. You're making it up as you go along and I'm tired of playing. Although not stated in those words, if you will read back you will find that I engaged in a little Primrose Pathing. If we set our present space-time as the reference, it will have changed by tomorrow. By requiring a reference that doesn't exist in reality, we are hardly any closer to the truth than our ancestors who thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. Scientists are putting their faith in references that continually change. Don't they realize that their references are just as prone to relativity effects as the universe in which those references exist? A relatively simply mathematical transformation will put the earth back at the center of the universe. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
On Jun 17, 4:41 pm, Jim Higgins wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:31:03 -0500, Cecil Moore 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. Huh? I recall the story quite differently. He had to give up on his original design because it wasn't immune to the gyroscopic effect resulting from rotation of the earth and pitching of the ship. i.e. a changing (physical) frame of reference. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote in news:1182121084.278523.139290
@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com: On Jun 16, 10:20 pm, Mike Coslo wrote: No, it proves that science is willing to admit when it is incorrect, and likes to self correct. Aha, but the scientific logic goes like this: We have corrected all our past mistakes and now we are corrent. When one corrects N mistakes while an infinity of mistakes go uncorrected, one is not making much progress. I don't know anyone who makes that logic. It seems like you are dragging out a strawman here. I think that an awful lot of what we know is correct, and a pretty good chunk of what we think we know is incomplete. There is another grouping of things that we think we know that are wrong. It is almost certainly shrinking though. Might it just be simpler to say that you don't care for those who believe that we've discovered it all? - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... "Jimmie D" wrote in : I t was often taught that matter was matter and energy was energy even after the developementof the atomic bomb and nuclear reactors.. Oy! While that event certainly proved beyond any doubt that th etwo were transferrable, some of those old books must have been waaaayy out of date. In my High school, in the early 70's, we were taught not one thing about anything that would make the world older than around 6000 years. Science class was very strange. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Actually E=MC2 was explaned fairly well in the text books, just not covered in class. My teacher had a problem with the earth being older than 6000 years too but it was a subject avoided. He would neither confirm nor deny his position in class though several students went to the same church he did. Jimmie |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com