Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sanforized
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Black holes disproven Now |
 |
|
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 11, 9:39 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:56 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
BURT wrote:
On Jul 11, 3:47 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 11, 11:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 11, 2:29 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 11, 11:21 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0585e77a-b98c-42bd-99b2-175d520948fc@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:03 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:25 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
The mathematical absurdities of black holes pointed out by people like
Stephen Hawking
First of all, as far as I know there is nothing absurd about black
holes,
Not according to Stephen Hawking. There are mathematical infinities at
both the singularity and event horizons of a black hole.
An infinity is not an absurdity.
Pete
Yes it is. It is a physical absurdity pete.
This is what I related to you earlier. You have this notion that
everything that is physically real is finite. This is not the case.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Prove it.
Show me where I am wrong.
Black holes.
Koch snowflake.- Hide quoted text -
That isn't infinite and even if it is it is only a math not a physics.
The only thing keeping you from creating a Koch
snowflake is the amount of time it would take
to draw it. As a drawing it is a real thing.- Hide quoted text -
You're making an excuse.
Nope. You are once again in denial.
Neither can calculus do infinite calculations.
I'm not getting into this with you when you can't even deal
with a Koch snowflake.-
That is a mathematical abstraction not a physical quantity.
|
Nonsense. A Koch snowflake is a physical entity on paper. You
could take a pair of scissors and cut it out if you had
enough time and a thin enough a pair of scissors (to say
nothing of vision good enough) to actually cut it out down
to a subatomic level.
Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it isn't doable
given improved technology, and given enough time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Black holes disproven Now |
|
|
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 11, 10:07 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:39 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:56 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
BURT wrote:
On Jul 11, 3:47 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 11, 11:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 11, 2:29 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 11, 11:21 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0585e77a-b98c-42bd-99b2-175d520948fc@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:03 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:25 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
The mathematical absurdities of black holes pointed out by people like
Stephen Hawking
First of all, as far as I know there is nothing absurd about black
holes,
Not according to Stephen Hawking. There are mathematical infinities at
both the singularity and event horizons of a black hole.
An infinity is not an absurdity.
Pete
Yes it is. It is a physical absurdity pete.
This is what I related to you earlier. You have this notion that
everything that is physically real is finite. This is not the case.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Prove it.
Show me where I am wrong.
Black holes.
Koch snowflake.- Hide quoted text -
That isn't infinite and even if it is it is only a math not a physics.
The only thing keeping you from creating a Koch
snowflake is the amount of time it would take
to draw it. As a drawing it is a real thing.- Hide quoted text -
You're making an excuse.
Nope. You are once again in denial.
Neither can calculus do infinite calculations.
I'm not getting into this with you when you can't even deal
with a Koch snowflake.-
That is a mathematical abstraction not a physical quantity.
Nonsense. A Koch snowflake is a physical entity on paper.
But it can never be fully drawn therefore it could never fully reach
infinity.
It is just a mathemetical abstraction not a real physics.
|
Physics is modeling, not reality. You are so out of your
depth it is disgusting.
| Quote: |
Mitch Raemsch; Never Nobel Laureate
You
could take a pair of scissors and cut it out if you had
enough time and a thin enough a pair of scissors (to say
nothing of vision good enough) to actually cut it out down
to a subatomic level.
Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it isn't doable
given improved technology, and given enough time. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:16 pm Post subject: Re: Black holes disproven Now |
|
|
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 11, 10:25 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 11, 10:07 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:39 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:56 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
BURT wrote:
On Jul 11, 3:47 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 11, 11:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 11, 2:29 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 11, 11:21 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0585e77a-b98c-42bd-99b2-175d520948fc@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:03 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:25 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
The mathematical absurdities of black holes pointed out by people like
Stephen Hawking
First of all, as far as I know there is nothing absurd about black
holes,
Not according to Stephen Hawking. There are mathematical infinities at
both the singularity and event horizons of a black hole.
An infinity is not an absurdity.
Pete
Yes it is. It is a physical absurdity pete.
This is what I related to you earlier. You have this notion that
everything that is physically real is finite. This is not the case.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Prove it.
Show me where I am wrong.
Black holes.
Koch snowflake.- Hide quoted text -
That isn't infinite and even if it is it is only a math not a physics.
The only thing keeping you from creating a Koch
snowflake is the amount of time it would take
to draw it. As a drawing it is a real thing.- Hide quoted text -
You're making an excuse.
Nope. You are once again in denial.
Neither can calculus do infinite calculations.
I'm not getting into this with you when you can't even deal
with a Koch snowflake.-
That is a mathematical abstraction not a physical quantity.
Nonsense. A Koch snowflake is a physical entity on paper.
But it can never be fully drawn therefore it could never fully reach
infinity.
It is just a mathemetical abstraction not a real physics.
Physics is modeling, not reality. You are so out of your
depth it is disgusting.
Mitch Raemsch; Never Nobel Laureate
You
could take a pair of scissors and cut it out if you had
enough time and a thin enough a pair of scissors (to say
nothing of vision good enough) to actually cut it out down
to a subatomic level.
Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it isn't doable
given improved technology, and given enough time.
Physics is about physical quantities of things.
|
Physics is modeling of nature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitch Raemsch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:56 pm Post subject: Re: Black holes disproven Now |
|
|
On Jul 12, 5:16 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
| Quote: |
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 11, 10:25 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 11, 10:07 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:39 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:56 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
BURT wrote:
On Jul 11, 3:47 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 11, 11:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 11, 2:29 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 11, 11:21 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0585e77a-b98c-42bd-99b2-175d520948fc@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:03 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:25 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
The mathematical absurdities of black holes pointed out by people like
Stephen Hawking
First of all, as far as I know there is nothing absurd about black
holes,
Not according to Stephen Hawking. There are mathematical infinities at
both the singularity and event horizons of a black hole.
An infinity is not an absurdity.
Pete
Yes it is. It is a physical absurdity pete.
This is what I related to you earlier. You have this notion that
everything that is physically real is finite. This is not the case.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Prove it.
Show me where I am wrong.
Black holes.
Koch snowflake.- Hide quoted text -
That isn't infinite and even if it is it is only a math not a physics.
The only thing keeping you from creating a Koch
snowflake is the amount of time it would take
to draw it. As a drawing it is a real thing.- Hide quoted text -
You're making an excuse.
Nope. You are once again in denial.
Neither can calculus do infinite calculations.
I'm not getting into this with you when you can't even deal
with a Koch snowflake.-
That is a mathematical abstraction not a physical quantity.
Nonsense. A Koch snowflake is a physical entity on paper.
But it can never be fully drawn therefore it could never fully reach
infinity.
It is just a mathemetical abstraction not a real physics.
Physics is modeling, not reality. You are so out of your
depth it is disgusting.
Mitch Raemsch; Never Nobel Laureate
You
could take a pair of scissors and cut it out if you had
enough time and a thin enough a pair of scissors (to say
nothing of vision good enough) to actually cut it out down
to a subatomic level.
Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it isn't doable
given improved technology, and given enough time.
Physics is about physical quantities of things.
Physics is modeling of nature.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Still there are no physically infinite quantities. Those are
impossible. Renormalization would be an example.
Mitch Raemsch
Mitch Raemsch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitch Raemsch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:59 am Post subject: Re: Black holes disproven Now |
|
|
On Jul 12, 4:53 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
| Quote: |
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 12, 5:16 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Physics is modeling of nature.- Hide quoted text -
Still there are no physically infinite quantities. Those are
impossible. Renormalization would be an example.
So you now claim that there was a beginning of time and
that there will be an end of time.
|
When did I claim that? There was a beginning of time with No Before.
Also the universe has an infinite future but that is not a physical
quantity. We have always lived in the Now. The past and future don't
exist. That Now is what goes on forever. It had a beginning.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitch Raemsch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:55 am Post subject: Re: Black holes disproven Now |
|
|
On Jul 12, 7:40 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
| Quote: |
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 12, 4:53 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 12, 5:16 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Physics is modeling of nature.- Hide quoted text -
Still there are no physically infinite quantities. Those are
impossible. Renormalization would be an example.
So you now claim that there was a beginning of time and
that there will be an end of time.
When did I claim that? There was a beginning of time with No Before.
Prove it.
Also the universe has an infinite future but that is not a physical
quantity.
It isn't?
We have always lived in the Now.
No, we lived in the then, now we live in the now. This now
becomes a then very quickly.
The past and future don't exist.
Prove it.
That Now is what goes on forever.
No it doesn't. Now ends quickly and becomes then.
It had a beginning.
But the discussion wasn't about now, it was about
whether time had a beginning, and whether or not
it has an ending. Intermediate steps are of no
interest to this discussion.
You cannot prove when there was a beginning of time
nor can you prove there will be an end. Or the
converse.
In which case you cannot prove that there are no
infinities nor can there ever be.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
You are just babble sany.
There was a beginning to time with No Before.
Still there are no physical infinities.
Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:53 am Post subject: Re: Black holes disproven Now |
|
|
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 12, 5:16 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Physics is modeling of nature.- Hide quoted text -
Still there are no physically infinite quantities. Those are
impossible. Renormalization would be an example.
|
So you now claim that there was a beginning of time and
that there will be an end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BURT
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:59 am Post subject: Re: Black holes disproven Now |
|
|
On Jul 12, 9:48 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
| Quote: |
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 12, 7:40 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 12, 4:53 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 12, 5:16 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Physics is modeling of nature.- Hide quoted text -
Still there are no physically infinite quantities. Those are
impossible. Renormalization would be an example.
So you now claim that there was a beginning of time and
that there will be an end of time.
When did I claim that? There was a beginning of time with No Before.
Prove it.
Also the universe has an infinite future but that is not a physical
quantity.
It isn't?
We have always lived in the Now.
No, we lived in the then, now we live in the now. This now
becomes a then very quickly.
The past and future don't exist.
Prove it.
That Now is what goes on forever.
No it doesn't. Now ends quickly and becomes then.
It had a beginning.
But the discussion wasn't about now, it was about
whether time had a beginning, and whether or not
it has an ending. Intermediate steps are of no
interest to this discussion.
You cannot prove when there was a beginning of time
nor can you prove there will be an end. Or the
converse.
In which case you cannot prove that there are no
infinities nor can there ever be.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are just babble sany.
There was a beginning to time with No Before.
Still there are no physical infinities.
You keep making all these incorrect pronouncements with
no proof and no way of proving what you say notwithstanding
that you don't have a formal education that might give you
the necessary tools to even attempt proving anything at
all.
Hellfire and damnation, you're not any better than some
run of the mill fundie preacher.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Science has a credo: Nothing is provable. It is only subject to its
disproof.
Black hole theory has been disproven.
It is a fact that black hole theory fails by predicting infinities
that are absurdities. Hawking pointed it out but failed to give them
up. That makes him a fake.
Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: Re: Black holes disproven Now |
|
|
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 12, 4:53 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 12, 5:16 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Physics is modeling of nature.- Hide quoted text -
Still there are no physically infinite quantities. Those are
impossible. Renormalization would be an example.
So you now claim that there was a beginning of time and
that there will be an end of time.
When did I claim that? There was a beginning of time with No Before.
|
Prove it.
| Quote: |
Also the universe has an infinite future but that is not a physical
quantity.
|
It isn't?
| Quote: |
We have always lived in the Now.
|
No, we lived in the then, now we live in the now. This now
becomes a then very quickly.
| Quote: |
The past and future don't exist.
|
Prove it.
| Quote: |
That Now is what goes on forever.
|
No it doesn't. Now ends quickly and becomes then.
It had a beginning.
But the discussion wasn't about now, it was about
whether time had a beginning, and whether or not
it has an ending. Intermediate steps are of no
interest to this discussion.
You cannot prove when there was a beginning of time
nor can you prove there will be an end. Or the
converse.
In which case you cannot prove that there are no
infinities nor can there ever be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: Re: Black holes disproven Now |
|
|
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 12, 7:40 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 12, 4:53 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Jul 12, 5:16 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Physics is modeling of nature.- Hide quoted text -
Still there are no physically infinite quantities. Those are
impossible. Renormalization would be an example.
So you now claim that there was a beginning of time and
that there will be an end of time.
When did I claim that? There was a beginning of time with No Before.
Prove it.
Also the universe has an infinite future but that is not a physical
quantity.
It isn't?
We have always lived in the Now.
No, we lived in the then, now we live in the now. This now
becomes a then very quickly.
The past and future don't exist.
Prove it.
That Now is what goes on forever.
No it doesn't. Now ends quickly and becomes then.
It had a beginning.
But the discussion wasn't about now, it was about
whether time had a beginning, and whether or not
it has an ending. Intermediate steps are of no
interest to this discussion.
You cannot prove when there was a beginning of time
nor can you prove there will be an end. Or the
converse.
In which case you cannot prove that there are no
infinities nor can there ever be.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are just babble sany.
There was a beginning to time with No Before.
Still there are no physical infinities.
|
You keep making all these incorrect pronouncements with
no proof and no way of proving what you say notwithstanding
that you don't have a formal education that might give you
the necessary tools to even attempt proving anything at
all.
Hellfire and damnation, you're not any better than some
run of the mill fundie preacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Science has credos? |
|
|
BURT wrote:
| Quote: |
Science has a credo:
|
Let's get something straight right here and right now.
Science has no credos. It has only the scientific method,
something you've ignored completely and have failed
time and again to use.
You need to read and understand this.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
It is written for your level of comprehension.
| Quote: |
Nothing is provable.
|
Nonsense!
"As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the
confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the
hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis
be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and
repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no
matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree
with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a
valid description of nature. In physics, as in every
experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental
verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary.
Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the
observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences
derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate
of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the
new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies
that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested,
because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications
(such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable),
do not qualify as scientific theories."
URL above.
| Quote: |
It is only subject to its disproof.
|
Wrong.
| Quote: |
Black hole theory has been disproven.
|
That's only your opinion.
| Quote: |
It is a fact that black hole theory fails by predicting
infinities that are absurdities.
|
You say nothing can be proved but you maintain that there
is proof that nothing can be infinite. You're in an
endless loop arguing with yourself.
| Quote: |
Hawking pointed it out but failed to give them
up. That makes him a fake.
|
No it doesn't.
When conditions for the creation of a black hole exist, what
realistic alternative outcome have you predicted? And how
are you going about proving it? Oops, you said nothing can
be proved.
Permit me to restate your claims. Everything you know is wrong.
That doesn't hold for everyone, however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BURT
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
On Jul 12, 10:38 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
| Quote: |
BURT wrote:
Science has a credo:
Let's get something straight right here and right now.
Science has no credos. It has only the scientific method,
something you've ignored completely and have failed
time and again to use.
You need to read and understand this.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
It is written for your level of comprehension.
Nothing is provable.
Nonsense!
"As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the
confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the
hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis
be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and
repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no
matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree
with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a
valid description of nature. In physics, as in every
experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental
verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary.
Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the
observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences
derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate
of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the
new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies
that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested,
because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications
(such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable),
do not qualify as scientific theories."
URL above.
> It is only subject to its disproof.
Wrong.
Black hole theory has been disproven.
That's only your opinion.
It is a fact that black hole theory fails by predicting
> infinities that are absurdities.
You say nothing can be proved but you maintain that there
is proof that nothing can be infinite. You're in an
endless loop arguing with yourself.
Hawking pointed it out but failed to give them
up. That makes him a fake.
No it doesn't.
When conditions for the creation of a black hole exist, what
realistic alternative outcome have you predicted? And how
are you going about proving it? Oops, you said nothing can
be proved.
Permit me to restate your claims. Everything you know is wrong.
That doesn't hold for everyone, however.
|
Science does not cliam to have final proof of its theories. There is
no way to prove them only to disprove. And yes that is science's
credo.
You lost this argument by your attitude san.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitch Raemsch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
On Jul 13, 12:34 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
| Quote: |
BURT wrote:
Science does not cliam to have final proof of its theories.
It has what are working proofs.
Those working proofs combined with initiative and
human greed to create the computer you're using
to spew your crapola. The proof that we have
working proofs is in your face every time you
write to the internet.
> There is no way to prove them only to disprove.
Oh gee, that means you can't really be there using
a computer then.
And yes that is science's credo.
Science has no credos. Credo has a Latin root which means
"I believe." Science has no beliefs what ever. Human beings
involved in science might, and you have plenty of them,
almost every one is wrong.
You lost this argument by your attitude san.
I've never lost an "argument" with you yet. At the rate
you've been going the chipmunk in my yard will out think
you tomorrow.
|
You never lost an argument in your life.
Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
On Jul 13, 1:57 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 12, 10:38 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
BURT wrote:
Science has a credo:
Let's get something straight right here and right now.
Science has no credos. It has only the scientific method,
something you've ignored completely and have failed
time and again to use.
You need to read and understand this.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
It is written for your level of comprehension.
Nothing is provable.
Nonsense!
"As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the
confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the
hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis
be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and
repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no
matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree
with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a
valid description of nature. In physics, as in every
experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental
verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary.
Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the
observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences
derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate
of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the
new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies
that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested,
because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications
(such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable),
do not qualify as scientific theories."
URL above.
> It is only subject to its disproof.
Wrong.
Black hole theory has been disproven.
That's only your opinion.
It is a fact that black hole theory fails by predicting
> infinities that are absurdities.
You say nothing can be proved but you maintain that there
is proof that nothing can be infinite. You're in an
endless loop arguing with yourself.
Hawking pointed it out but failed to give them
up. That makes him a fake.
No it doesn't.
When conditions for the creation of a black hole exist, what
realistic alternative outcome have you predicted? And how
are you going about proving it? Oops, you said nothing can
be proved.
Permit me to restate your claims. Everything you know is wrong.
That doesn't hold for everyone, however.
Science does not cliam to have final proof of its theories. There is
no way to prove them only to disprove. And yes that is science's
credo.
|
Now your approach becomes clearer. Your tactic is to simply make
assertions, since there is no proof required. And in fact, in your
view of science, the onus is on the *disprover*, and so you then
challenge others to prove your assertions are wrong. This is a
charmingly simplistic rationale for trolling a newsgroup.
| Quote: |
You lost this argument by your attitude san.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitch Raemsch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
On Jul 13, 1:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 1:57 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 12, 10:38 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
BURT wrote:
Science has a credo:
Let's get something straight right here and right now.
Science has no credos. It has only the scientific method,
something you've ignored completely and have failed
time and again to use.
You need to read and understand this.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
It is written for your level of comprehension.
Nothing is provable.
Nonsense!
"As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the
confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the
hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis
be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and
repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no
matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree
with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a
valid description of nature. In physics, as in every
experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental
verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary.
Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the
observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences
derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate
of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the
new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies
that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested,
because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications
(such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable),
do not qualify as scientific theories."
URL above.
> It is only subject to its disproof.
Wrong.
Black hole theory has been disproven.
That's only your opinion.
It is a fact that black hole theory fails by predicting
> infinities that are absurdities.
You say nothing can be proved but you maintain that there
is proof that nothing can be infinite. You're in an
endless loop arguing with yourself.
Hawking pointed it out but failed to give them
up. That makes him a fake.
No it doesn't.
When conditions for the creation of a black hole exist, what
realistic alternative outcome have you predicted? And how
are you going about proving it? Oops, you said nothing can
be proved.
Permit me to restate your claims. Everything you know is wrong.
That doesn't hold for everyone, however.
Science does not cliam to have final proof of its theories. There is
no way to prove them only to disprove. And yes that is science's
credo.
Now your approach becomes clearer. Your tactic is to simply make
assertions, since there is no proof required. And in fact, in your
view of science, the onus is on the *disprover*, and so you then
challenge others to prove your assertions are wrong. This is a
charmingly simplistic rationale for trolling a newsgroup.
You lost this argument by your attitude san.
Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
I express myself freely here. Nobody has refuted me yet.
So far so good.
Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
93 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
