Ping Don Findlay's strike game players

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
oups.com...
There's a well-worn saying: "'They laughed at ...


" Ha, ha, ha, hoooweee. You are crazy, nobody in their right mind would buy
a watch with NO HANDS!" Swiss watch makers to inventor of quartz watch. I
guess Seiko got the last laugh here. Will E.

TomS wrote:
"On 4 Jul 2006 20:12:13 -0700, in article
.com, Tom McDonald stated..."
[...snip...]
There's a well-worn saying: "'They laughed at Galileo; they laughed at
Newton; they laughed at Einstein.' 'They laughed at a good few loonies,
too!'"
[...snip...]

To make an irrelevant comment:

I've often wondered about the people on the "they laughed at"
lists.

Did "they" ever laugh at Galileo, Newton, or Einstein?

Hmmm. Excellent question.


(Well, I know that they did laugh at Einstein when he stuck
out his tongue for the camera, but you know what I mean.)

My guess is that they did laugh at the Wright brothers and
at Robert Goddard (there is that famous editorial which says
that Goddard forgot his basic physics when he said that rockets
could travel in outer space - that he didn't realize that there
wasn't anything for the rocket to push against).

I remember reading about that. But was that other scientists, or just a
newspaper editorial?



--
---Tom S. http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm
"... have a clear idea of what you should expect if your hypothesis is correct,
and what you should observe if your hypothesis is wrong ... If you cannot do
this, then this is an indicator that your hypothesis may be too vague."
RV Clarke & JE Eck: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers - step 20

Kermit

Good grief! The thread veers to something which is actually
plausibly on topic to all the named groups! I will, nevertheless,
set followups to talk.origins since Tom and I are both over there.

In article ,
TomS wrote:
"On 4 Jul 2006 20:12:13 -0700, in article
s.com, Tom McDonald stated..."
[...snip...]
There's a well-worn saying: "'They laughed at Galileo; they laughed at
Newton; they laughed at Einstein.' 'They laughed at a good few loonies,
too!'"
[...snip...]

To make an irrelevant comment:

I've often wondered about the people on the "they laughed at"
lists.

Did "they" ever laugh at Galileo, Newton, or Einstein?

(Well, I know that they did laugh at Einstein when he stuck
out his tongue for the camera, but you know what I mean.)

My guess is that they did laugh at the Wright brothers and
at Robert Goddard (there is that famous editorial which says
that Goddard forgot his basic physics when he said that rockets
could travel in outer space - that he didn't realize that there
wasn't anything for the rocket to push against).

For accurate answers, you'll have to talk some about which
value of 'they' you mean. ex:

Galileo was laughed at by a value of 'they' which means The Church.
His peers (of whom he tended to deny the existence, hence some of
his problems) were generally favorable.

Newton, on his astronomy, optics, math, physics, don't think
laughter was involved. A fair amount of cursing perhaps. His
alchemy, on the other hand, may well have encountered laughter.

Einstein on relativity was met with either rapid 'of course'
acceptance (special relativity) or impressed 'I wish I'd done
that' acceptance (photoelectric effect and general relativity).
His later arguments against Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
didn't elicit laughter either, though perhaps some wistful
'I wish he were going after something more interesting'.

The 'they' who laughed at Goddard was a newspaper editorial.
His worked languished not because it was laughable but because
it wasn't 'interesting'.

Wright brothers got a fair amount of laughter from 'they's which
included general public and at least one technically knowledgeable
guy, Newcomb, speaking far outside his field of expertise (his was
astronomy, in which he was quite good). Among the theys who were
knowledgeable about the engineering and science involved, the Wright
brothers were fairly well respected.

Alfred Wegener is often listed as a 'they laughed at' person.
Trivially true w.r.t. general public. Within the professional
world relevant to continental drift, though, it's more involved.
One strain of laughter involved his mechanism, which was and is
laughable. (Not really his mechanism, but he did include it and
it was a focus of Sir Harold Jeffreys' attacks and others' laughter.)
The rest involved some geographic partisanship, English speakers
being the most prone to laughter.


It's fairly hard to come up with a person who really was laughed
at by experts in the field, and for whom that laughter was unjust.

Much easier is to name people who were largely ignored --
Mendel, McClintock, Goddard,

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

In article , George wrote:
Considering how poorly DF has done in these ridiculous threads over
the years, I would suggest that he contact the University of Glascow and
ask for a refund of his tuition.

If Findlay attended Glasgow as a student at that time, then his
tuition would probably have been paid for by the state, not personally.

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Tue, 11 Jul 2006 04:12 +0100, but posted later.

"Aidan Karley" .group
wrote in message
s.group...
In article , George
wrote:
Considering how poorly DF has done in these ridiculous threads over
the years, I would suggest that he contact the University of Glascow and
ask for a refund of his tuition.

If Findlay attended Glasgow as a student at that time, then his
tuition would probably have been paid for by the state, not personally.

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Tue, 11 Jul 2006 04:12 +0100, but posted later.

Wow. Then perhaps the state should sue him for a return of all funds, as
he has obviously wasted a lot of money.

George

In article , George wrote:
Wow. Then perhaps the state should sue him for a return of all funds, as
he has obviously wasted a lot of money.

This might explain why he's in Australia.

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:09 +0100, but posted later.

"Aidan Karley" .group
wrote in message
s.group...
In article , George
wrote:
Wow. Then perhaps the state should sue him for a return of all funds,
as
he has obviously wasted a lot of money.

This might explain why he's in Australia.

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:09 +0100, but posted later.

Obviously. lol

George

Timberwoof wrote:
In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:


So in other words, we have a plausible theory that doesn't violate any
laws of physics but does explain very well all kinds of geologic
features of the planet,

In saying that the subducting slab drives Plate Tectonics. PT violates
its own law of flotation.

Case closed.

In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:
In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:


So in other words, we have a plausible theory that doesn't violate any
laws of physics but does explain very well all kinds of geologic
features of the planet,

In saying that the subducting slab drives Plate Tectonics. PT violates
its own law of flotation.

In insisting on using flawed descriptions of plate tectonics instead of
using the latest theories (which you could have learned by attending
that conference), you show that you're ignorant of the theory you're
trying to disprove.

Case closed.

Yep.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com

In article . com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:
In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:
In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:


So in other words, we have a plausible theory that doesn't violate any
laws of physics but does explain very well all kinds of geologic
features of the planet,

In saying that the subducting slab drives Plate Tectonics. PT violates
its own law of flotation.

In insisting on using flawed descriptions of plate tectonics

What's flawed about them? You'll have to take that one up with the
various educational institutions touting it. I keep telling you -
'tain't me, ..'sthem.
http://tinyurl.com/nmzus
..I am representing nothing - merely reporting what educational
institutions are telling your children. I am your messenger as well as
your mirror, ..and tell you what, mate - you look pretty silly
supporting stuff like that. What's it going to be like when you're an
old guy, and being looked after by idiots like that?

Come on, you're just rambling. You made a lot of stupid points in that
scattergun attack, the stupidest of which is proving to one and all that
you haven't paid one whit of attention to what anyone has told you about
plate tectonics. It's as though you don't want to know.

instead of using the latest theories

Yeah? What *is* the latest theory? Blobtonics?

Well, had you gone to that conference on geodynamics, you might know.
But since you stuck your head in the stand instead, you don't.


(which you could have learned by attending
that conference), you show that you're ignorant of the theory you're
trying to disprove.

I'm not interested in any "latest theory".

Well, of course, not. It shows that what you're talking about is
obsolete and a waste of time.

It changes more often than
a whore's knickers (the blobonic plague). Are you? ... You're the
student. My evangelical presence here is to save you from the scourge
of prostituting proselytisers, bent on perverting the facts of
buoyancy, the tried true and tested seat of plate tectonics for which
Mr Forsyth got a prize just last year for helping Mr Uyeda write up his
stuff:-
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/aw...eeches/day.htm
...You'll need to get with it, Woof, if you're going to pass that exam.
You saw what happened to that piece of knotted string for trying to
pass himself off as an abacus, didn't you? You wouldn't want that
spectre, the Ghost of Christmas Past, to appear to you in the darkness
of your despair in understanding alla dis stuff to set your right and
tell you you're no "big deal", ..now would you?

You're rambling again.

Poor John. Commiserations here for John. R.I.P.)

So just pull your head in. It's official. Buoyancy pushes the mantle
down. Go gander your nearest subduction zone amd see.

And now you're just being stupid.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com