Re: Scientific Errors
- From: dennis_b@xxxxxxxxx (Dennis B)
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:02:56 -0700
To T, Wake:
I have a simple question for you. If you put an M-16 loaded with 55
grain .22 caliber (223) Remington's in your mouth and pulled the trigger
do you think the stream of molten lead would exert less pressure than an
M-16 with the barrel removed (keeping in mind that the velocity of the
fluid will be less if the barrel is removed)? And if the pressure of a
fluid decreases as the velocity increases as you insistt does, then
where does the greater pressure of hurricane force winds come from?
Surely you won't argue that the harder the wind the blows, the HARDER it
blows. Anyone who's ever been knocked down by a firehose knows that
increasing the velocity of a fluid increases it's pressure. I haven't
attempted to rewrite physics at all. I am merely attempting to present
it correctly. After all, Bernoulli was the one whom discovered that the
pressure of a gas is due to the momentum of the fluid molecules and that
increasing the momentum, such as by heating the fluid, increases the
pressure. Therefore, accelerating all of the fluid molecules in a single
direction at once will increase the pressure in the direction of motion
as predicted by Newton's law of ma = F. If you're going to continue to
argue against Newton's law of ma = F, then I suggest you take your cult
of insanity somewhere else. A science forum is no place to preach such
nonsense. And in regard to your solicitation for money, notice that I
haven't asked for any money in return for the gem of knowledge I have
given you (yet which you are too foolish to appreciate). That's because
science is truly my passion in life. I don't consider it "work" any more
than I consider playing music "work". And for your information, although
I am only a student of science, that does not make me any less of a
scientist. I am already more of a scientist than you will ever be. Oh,
and by the way, I just bought a modem and router for my "real" computer.
So I won't be using WebTV much longer. Then you won't have anything left
to use as a distraction for your irrational behavior.
-Dennis B
Re: Scientific Errors
Group: sci.physics Date: Tue, Jun 20, 2006, 7:46pm (PDT+8) From:
Usenet.es7AT@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (T Wake)
"Dennis B" <dennis_b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:14063-4497466A-85@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sadly, your excuse for a USENET client has completely garbled the
message you have sent and I have no inclination to spend my time trying
to fix it for you. Stop being a tight ass and spend some money to get a
PC - failing that be like all the others and use
http://groups.google.com/
WebTV gets the job done doesn't it? Otherwise you wouldn't be
responding. And at least I can spell better than Phineas, who's a
hypocrite for saying that I don't know how to operate my computer (while
he submits empty posts like a hiccup).
Well, if you think "WebTV" gets the job done is acceptable - good for
you. As it stands, the fact that _you_ cant produce posts to USENET
standards does imply to me at least that _you_ can not operate your
computer.
I'd conclude you were a 'bot programmed to label everyone a kook, krank,
or krackpot. You have yet to properly conduct yourself as the scientist
you claim to be
You can conclude anything you want. Feel free to think of me as a bot. I
dont care.
You purport to be a scientist yourself yet you show no understanding of
the scientific method nor have you chosen to inform PTP of your
credentials / education or background.
I said that not you.
What difference does my background make in the determination of the
validity of what I have to say.
Hello Mr DoubleStandards. You first tried to create an authority fallacy
about PTP's scientific credentials then suddenly claim it doesnt matter.
Well done Sir.
Your background is important.
As you (appear to) have no formal training in Physics it explains why
your understanding is patchy and you are more than willing to make
fundamental errors. You have to remember that most of modern physics -
especially when it steps outside the realms of everyday life (scale and
time for example) - is counter intuitive. The problem the newsgroups
suffer from is the millions of armchair professors who think they can
re-write the physics text books.
If you were (for example) the Wykeham Professor of Physics at Oxford,
then your work would be more likely to actually progress the current
understanding to a new level. You could, at least, be expected to
understand the scientific method and be able to produce a theory which
met the required criteria.
Either it makes sense or it doesn't.
Guess what.
Background isn't going to change that. If you are going to tell me I'm
wrong...you should point out the error. Otherwise you are guilty of
violating the scientific method in the absence of evidence to support
your claim.
Total nonsense. If you made an error in that a single calculation had a
fault, then yes people could "point out the error" and let you crack on
with it.
As it stands, your entire thinking is build on foundations of quicksand.
Pointing out _the_ error is not simple.
For a start - the main error I can see is you need to study physics
first. Is that good enough for you?
By the way, you are also wrong (signs of a strawman being built here?)
when you say it violates the scientific method to simply say "you are
wrong." The evidence in support of the current theory is out there.
Because you are too lazy to bother spending four - six years of your
life learning it doesnt mean I should teach it to you.
You have shown your lack of scientific rigour, in that you base your
assessment of PTP's status by the replies _you_ have received on this
single thread. If you were to actually look at the newsgroup posts as a
whole you would see he has more than demonstrated an understanding of
the topic.
I said that as well. I wish your "newsreader" quoted properly.
I don't need to look into his background or past postings to usenet in
order to know that he has violated the scientific method. He's arguing
with Newton. That strips him (and you) of any validity as a scientist.
Nonsense. Get that strawman out and set fire to it.
PTP is not arguing with Newton because Newton is dead. PTP is pointing
out that you are wrong. There is a difference.
The scientific method does not require that any and all propositions by
cranks on USENET should be treated with equal rigour and debated
continually. You have made your (ahem) theory, so falsify it. That is
the scientific method.
As I have offered, I will review your work if you are prepared to pay
for my time.
You whore! You're thoughts on the matter aren't worth a single penny.
Ok. You will get the free opinion: What you have posted is crap.
I
know of a corner in the downtown area where you're likely to make a lot
more money selling your BS.
Whatever. You want people to spend hours of their life reading your work
and pointing out the errors because _you_ are too lazy to get an
education. Shocking.
Well, I will do it for you. But as I have a family to support my time
costs money - as does everyones. If you want me to _work_ for you then
you have to pay me. I am willing to fully review your work at a rate of
£110 an hour.
If you wish to get "peer review" via USENET, well, you will get what you
pay for.
To help, and for free, I will let you know that your science is lacking.
I have lot more to say on the subject of Bernoulli's principle (such as:
one must take into account inter-molecular forces as well as energy
density) so you'd be right to say that my science is lacking (as opposed
to wrong).
It is so lacking as to be absent. You are arguing semantics here. You
have proposed an idea to "rewrite" physics and I have said you are
wrong. You are wrong because your scientific knowledge is lacking.
You are still wrong.
Yet, to say I am wrong without explaining yourself is truly
"lacking" (evidence).
Oh well. I will explain myself for you. You do not understand enough to
know why you are wrong. There. Happy now?
I've provided the proof. Newton's equation. All
you have to do is disprove Newton's equation of >ma = >F.
Shall we start with the equation that is an "approximation" of?
I'm not sure what your "qualifications" or background would be (nor do I
care...I will judge you by what you have to say), yet I know that you're
a waste of my time and would be a waste of my money as well.
Far from true. But you will never know that. You have an idea, but you
dont know how wrong you are. Your understanding is so limited you cant
see why, what you are saying is wrong.
This will entertain me for some time so you dont have to pay me.
This is a science forum.
I know. Which is why you will be mocked mercilessly for a lack of
science.
If you're going to tell someone they're wrong in their logic, you
need to specify the error.
No I dont. Spend six years at university to learn why you are wrong. Why
should I spend my spare time tutoring you, when you dont really want to
learn?
To say "this is USENET" is no excuse for such unscientific behavior.
Oh yes it is. Prove me wrong.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Scientific Errors
- From: T Wake
- Re: Scientific Errors
- References:
- Re: Scientific Errors
- From: T Wake
- Re: Scientific Errors
- Prev by Date: Re: Conservation of light energy...
- Next by Date: Re: Scientific Errors
- Previous by thread: Re: Scientific Errors
- Next by thread: Re: Scientific Errors
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
