|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
And how does this contrast with all those scientists who love to
pretend they know everything there is to know about the workings of the universe. And who is that? Names, please, and the verifiable quote where they say they "know everything." -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Aug 14, 7:15*pm, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote: And how does this contrast with all those scientists who love to pretend they know everything there is to know about the workings of the universe. And who is that? *Names, please, and the verifiable quote where they say they "know everything." -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California That information is not publicly available. Get it? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] How science is not done
"Dave Typinski" wrote in message ... Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate Change neé Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/ ***** Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004: "Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." ***** "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." Phil Jones does /not/ know how science works. -- Dave I'd agree with you in principle, but unfortunately modern theoretical physics is more chicanery than science, more astrology than astronomy. It sounds like Jones is saying "Why should I make the data available to you for free, when I haven't made a red cent out of it yet? Hawking gets a pat on the back from your President who then says "His work in theoretical physics - which I will not attempt to explain further here - has advanced our understanding of the universe. " http://tinyurl.com/lsooj9 That's how "science" really works. I demand a further explanation. If Obama doesn't understand it, what's he giving away medals for? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] How science is not done
You spun a spin on your own crank theory, Schidt.
"Michael Toms Shidt" wrote in message ... You cited a bad source and global warming is fallacious. Scientists should be figuring out the extended solar cycles they know nothing about at this time. "Dave Typinski" wrote in message ... Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate Change neé Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/ ***** Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004: "Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." ***** "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." Phil Jones does /not/ know how science works. -- Dave |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
And how does this contrast with all those scientists who love to
pretend they know everything there is to know about the workings of the universe. And who is that? Names, please, and the verifiable quote where they say they "know everything." -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California That information is not publicly available. Then it must be privately available to you. Perhaps you could share some of it. -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] How science is not done
I'd agree with you in principle, but unfortunately modern theoretical physics is more chicanery than science, more astrology than astronomy. Ah, yet another one who thinks it's "chicanery" merely because he doesn't understand it. -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
"Curtis Croulet" wrote in message ... And how does this contrast with all those scientists who love to pretend they know everything there is to know about the workings of the universe. And who is that? Names, please, and the verifiable quote where they say they "know everything." -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California No names required, the comment refers to all those scientists who love to pretend they know everything, it doesn't say anything about those that do not love to pretend. Curtis Croulet loves to pretend he isn't writing spam by putting **NO**SPAM** in his email address, but he's pretending his statement is a question by including "how" or else he's pretending his statement isn't a question by omitting "?" Whatever, he hasn't given a name to anyone else. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] How science is not done
"Curtis Croulet" wrote in message ... I'd agree with you in principle, but unfortunately modern theoretical physics is more chicanery than science, more astrology than astronomy. Ah, yet another one who thinks it's "chicanery" merely because he doesn't understand it. Ah, yet another snipping spamming ****wit limited to one-line cheap shots. Hey moron! Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way is the same? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Aug 14, 7:44*pm, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote: And how does this contrast with all those scientists who love to pretend they know everything there is to know about the workings of the universe. And who is that? Names, please, and the verifiable quote where they say they "know everything." -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California That information is not publicly available. Then it must be privately available to you. *Perhaps you could share some of it. -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California You will just have to take my incredilously edukated word for it. Gaze at me diplomats on the wall. Oh, and "study harder" of course. *rolls eye sockets* Anyway, we do agree not everything has been figured out and everything we pretend to know is wrong. But with the gate keeping crap holla it is not going to changenosis. Truth by consensus or truth by credentials is just bullcrap. You have to convert to Christianity or off with your head. That is consensus. ____ http://blog.go-here.nl |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
On Aug 14, 7:00*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Curtis Croulet" wrote in message ... And how does this contrast with all those scientists who love to pretend they know everything there is to know about the workings of the universe. And who is that? *Names, please, and the verifiable quote where they say they "know everything." -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California No names required, the comment refers to all those scientists who love to *pretend they know everything, it doesn't say anything about those that do not love to pretend. Curtis Croulet loves to pretend he isn't writing spam by putting **NO**SPAM** in his email address, but he's pretending his statement is a question by including "how" *or else he's pretending his statement isn't a question by omitting "?" Whatever, he hasn't given a name to anyone else. This is not about 'how science works' but how empiricism defends itself,probably the only trait it has. What you see is not even astrology for even the ancient astrologers were good enough to separate the annual cycle via the constellations from the daily cycle using the Sun,empiricists invert the whole thing and build concepts on the motions of the constellations around Polaris.In the 16th century they thought this no center/no circumference was horrifying and went looking for the argument for planetary dynamics to explain it - "Suppose person A were on the earth somewhere below the north pole of the heavens and person B were at the north pole of the heavens. In that case, to A the pole would appear to be at the zenith, and A would believe himself to be at the center; to B the earth would appear to be at the zenith, and B would believe himself to be at the center. Thus, A's zenith would be B's center, and B's zenith would be A's " And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see-- through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa The next time Wormley posts his 'no center/big bang' thingie,all he is doing is promoting something which horrified astronomers before Copernicus proposed planetary dynamics to resolve it,the fact that this world worships the 'big bang' cretinous view is far more horrifying.You get what you pay for John and that is how 'science works'. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as DeepUnderground Science Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 11th 07 05:37 PM |
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as Deep Underground Science Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | July 11th 07 04:48 PM |
Mainstream Science Peers Still Trying To Catch Up With Maverick AdvancedTheoretical Science Officers And Researchers | nightbat | Misc | 4 | November 11th 06 02:34 AM |
Top Science Xprize For The Best and Science Team Officers Is In Order | nightbat | Misc | 8 | September 8th 06 09:50 AM |
Science Names Mars Rover Mission Science Program as Breakthrough of the Year | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 16th 04 09:22 PM |