Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PD
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
 |
|
On Jul 13, 4:49 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 1:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
|
Yes, I know -- this is the tactic of the crank. "As long as I am still
standing," says the crank, "then I have won." The crank can believe
whatever he wants to believes and dares the world to prove to him that
he's wrong. If the world does not succeed, the crank figures that what
he says must have at least a germ of truth. "Otherwise," the self-
deluding crank argues, "they would explain it in such a way that I
would have not choice to admit my error and I would have to shut up."
Fortunately, the crank always has the option of admitting nothing and
simply not shutting up.
Of course, the crank might as well be insisting that 3+9 is 15, and
when the comment appears that this not correct, the crank can simply
insist that it is correct and demand to be convinced that 3+9 is not
15. And the crank is *never* convinced that 3+9 is not what he thought
it was in the first place.
This does not mean that 3+9 is 15, of course. It only means that the
crank is incapable of being educated. It also means that the crank is
not interested in learning how to discover the truth and distinguish
it from mistakes, but is instead only interested in surviving the
fight.
So ask yourself, what is it, exactly, that you hope to gain from
surviving a wrestling match on a usenet newsgroup?
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitch Raemsch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
On Jul 13, 1:59 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 4:49 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 13, 1:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Yes, I know -- this is the tactic of the crank. "As long as I am still
standing," says the crank, "then I have won." The crank can believe
whatever he wants to believes and dares the world to prove to him that
he's wrong. If the world does not succeed, the crank figures that what
he says must have at least a germ of truth. "Otherwise," the self-
deluding crank argues, "they would explain it in such a way that I
would have not choice to admit my error and I would have to shut up."
Fortunately, the crank always has the option of admitting nothing and
simply not shutting up.
Of course, the crank might as well be insisting that 3+9 is 15, and
when the comment appears that this not correct, the crank can simply
insist that it is correct and demand to be convinced that 3+9 is not
15. And the crank is *never* convinced that 3+9 is not what he thought
it was in the first place.
This does not mean that 3+9 is 15, of course. It only means that the
crank is incapable of being educated. It also means that the crank is
not interested in learning how to discover the truth and distinguish
it from mistakes, but is instead only interested in surviving the
fight.
So ask yourself, what is it, exactly, that you hope to gain from
surviving a wrestling match on a usenet newsgroup?
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Your emberassment when you find out who I really am.
Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
On Jul 13, 5:15 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 1:59 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 13, 4:49 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 13, 1:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Yes, I know -- this is the tactic of the crank. "As long as I am still
standing," says the crank, "then I have won." The crank can believe
whatever he wants to believes and dares the world to prove to him that
he's wrong. If the world does not succeed, the crank figures that what
he says must have at least a germ of truth. "Otherwise," the self-
deluding crank argues, "they would explain it in such a way that I
would have not choice to admit my error and I would have to shut up."
Fortunately, the crank always has the option of admitting nothing and
simply not shutting up.
Of course, the crank might as well be insisting that 3+9 is 15, and
when the comment appears that this not correct, the crank can simply
insist that it is correct and demand to be convinced that 3+9 is not
15. And the crank is *never* convinced that 3+9 is not what he thought
it was in the first place.
This does not mean that 3+9 is 15, of course. It only means that the
crank is incapable of being educated. It also means that the crank is
not interested in learning how to discover the truth and distinguish
it from mistakes, but is instead only interested in surviving the
fight.
So ask yourself, what is it, exactly, that you hope to gain from
surviving a wrestling match on a usenet newsgroup?
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Your emberassment when you find out who I really am.
|
Then you should not hesitate to embarrass me, "Mitch". I shall brace
myself for whatever astounding revelation you may have ready.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitch Raemsch
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
On Jul 13, 2:23 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 5:15 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 13, 1:59 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 13, 4:49 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 13, 1:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Yes, I know -- this is the tactic of the crank. "As long as I am still
standing," says the crank, "then I have won." The crank can believe
whatever he wants to believes and dares the world to prove to him that
he's wrong. If the world does not succeed, the crank figures that what
he says must have at least a germ of truth. "Otherwise," the self-
deluding crank argues, "they would explain it in such a way that I
would have not choice to admit my error and I would have to shut up."
Fortunately, the crank always has the option of admitting nothing and
simply not shutting up.
Of course, the crank might as well be insisting that 3+9 is 15, and
when the comment appears that this not correct, the crank can simply
insist that it is correct and demand to be convinced that 3+9 is not
15. And the crank is *never* convinced that 3+9 is not what he thought
it was in the first place.
This does not mean that 3+9 is 15, of course. It only means that the
crank is incapable of being educated. It also means that the crank is
not interested in learning how to discover the truth and distinguish
it from mistakes, but is instead only interested in surviving the
fight.
So ask yourself, what is it, exactly, that you hope to gain from
surviving a wrestling match on a usenet newsgroup?
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Your emberassment when you find out who I really am.
Then you should not hesitate to embarrass me, "Mitch". I shall brace
myself for whatever astounding revelation you may have ready.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
November the 5th. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
On Jul 13, 5:33 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 2:23 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 13, 5:15 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 13, 1:59 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 13, 4:49 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 13, 1:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Yes, I know -- this is the tactic of the crank. "As long as I am still
standing," says the crank, "then I have won." The crank can believe
whatever he wants to believes and dares the world to prove to him that
he's wrong. If the world does not succeed, the crank figures that what
he says must have at least a germ of truth. "Otherwise," the self-
deluding crank argues, "they would explain it in such a way that I
would have not choice to admit my error and I would have to shut up.."
Fortunately, the crank always has the option of admitting nothing and
simply not shutting up.
Of course, the crank might as well be insisting that 3+9 is 15, and
when the comment appears that this not correct, the crank can simply
insist that it is correct and demand to be convinced that 3+9 is not
15. And the crank is *never* convinced that 3+9 is not what he thought
it was in the first place.
This does not mean that 3+9 is 15, of course. It only means that the
crank is incapable of being educated. It also means that the crank is
not interested in learning how to discover the truth and distinguish
it from mistakes, but is instead only interested in surviving the
fight.
So ask yourself, what is it, exactly, that you hope to gain from
surviving a wrestling match on a usenet newsgroup?
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Your emberassment when you find out who I really am.
Then you should not hesitate to embarrass me, "Mitch". I shall brace
myself for whatever astounding revelation you may have ready.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
November the 5th.
|
Ooooh. Wait. Let me guess. Are you George Bush?
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:34 am Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
BURT wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
| Quote: |
There is no way to prove them only to disprove.
|
Oh gee, that means you can't really be there using
a computer then.
| Quote: |
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.
| Quote: |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Autymn D. C.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:38 am Post subject: Damn Google Groups; Re: Black holes disproven Now |
|
|
Wicked Google Groups broke nearly all of my links which used the
hıphen in fraseis; one must plug in a plus instead, thus:
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+fast-food+black-holes
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+black-holes+thunderbolts
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+fast-food+God
become
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+fast+food+black+holes
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+black+holes+info
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+fast+food+God
On Jul 11, 5:03 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
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, though they are a tad unusual. Moreover, outside the event
|
As far as you don't heed my posts against black holes, you know as
such. Mitch's posts in this thread are true and sooth. Nothing real
is infinite.
| Quote: |
horizon, which is the limit where the rules of our universe apply,
there is nothing that could be labeled infinite or a singularity.
Anything infinite or singular is what is *presumed*, but not known, to
apply on the *other side* of the event horizon, a domain separated
from our universe. Finally, it is a mistake to say that if it is
|
If inside the black hole is separated from our univers, it could not
be born in the first stead. The event horizon corresponds with the
escape velocity of celerity, which is where matter should reach
infinite mass-energhy, which /is/ absurd as there was never such
potential in the sıstem.
| Quote: |
infinite it cannot belong to our universe, because everything in our
universe is finite -- that is demonstrably not true, and insisting
that it should be is just a denial of reality.
|
It is demonstrably true in everything.
-Aut |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
BURT
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: Re: Damn Google Groups; Re: Black holes disproven Now |
|
|
On Jul 13, 6:38 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Wicked Google Groups broke nearly all of my links which used the
hıphen in fraseis; one must plug in a plus instead, thus:
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+fast-food+black-holeshttp://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+black-holes+thunderboltshttp://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+fast-food+God
becomehttp://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+fast+food+black+holeshttp://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+black+holes+infohttp://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+fast+food+God
On Jul 11, 5:03 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, though they are a tad unusual. Moreover, outside the event
As far as you don't heed my posts against black holes, you know as
such. Mitch's posts in this thread are true and sooth. Nothing real
is infinite.
horizon, which is the limit where the rules of our universe apply,
there is nothing that could be labeled infinite or a singularity.
Anything infinite or singular is what is *presumed*, but not known, to
apply on the *other side* of the event horizon, a domain separated
from our universe. Finally, it is a mistake to say that if it is
If inside the black hole is separated from our univers, it could not
be born in the first stead. The event horizon corresponds with the
escape velocity of celerity, which is where matter should reach
infinite mass-energhy, which /is/ absurd as there was never such
potential in the sıstem.
infinite it cannot belong to our universe, because everything in our
universe is finite -- that is demonstrably not true, and insisting
that it should be is just a denial of reality.
It is demonstrably true in everything.
-Aut
|
In the future you will know me as the guy who disproved black holes.
But I am expected to replace the theory with a better theory.
Pound Rebka taken to its extreme disproves black holes.
What's next?
Mitch Raemsch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 12:34 pm, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
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
|
Not with you, that's for sure. And I haven't "won" a Nobel
either. Your claims combine to dub you insane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:36 am Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
PD 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.
|
If he were a troll.
| Quote: |
You lost this argument by your attitude san.
Mitch Raemsch
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:39 am Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 1:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
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
|
Bow wow! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:48 am Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 4:49 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 13, 1:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Yes, I know -- this is the tactic of the crank. "As long as I am still
standing," says the crank, "then I have won." The crank can believe
whatever he wants to believes and dares the world to prove to him that
he's wrong. If the world does not succeed, the crank figures that what
he says must have at least a germ of truth. "Otherwise," the self-
deluding crank argues, "they would explain it in such a way that I
would have not choice to admit my error and I would have to shut up."
Fortunately, the crank always has the option of admitting nothing and
simply not shutting up.
Of course, the crank might as well be insisting that 3+9 is 15, and
when the comment appears that this not correct, the crank can simply
insist that it is correct and demand to be convinced that 3+9 is not
15. And the crank is *never* convinced that 3+9 is not what he thought
it was in the first place.
This does not mean that 3+9 is 15, of course. It only means that the
crank is incapable of being educated. It also means that the crank is
not interested in learning how to discover the truth and distinguish
it from mistakes, but is instead only interested in surviving the
fight.
So ask yourself, what is it, exactly, that you hope to gain from
surviving
|
But he's not surviving.
| Quote: |
a wrestling match on a usenet newsgroup?
|
It provides some form of personal satisfaction to him
when nothing else in his personal life is working. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:50 am Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 1:59 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 13, 4:49 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 13, 1:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Yes, I know -- this is the tactic of the crank. "As long as I am still
standing," says the crank, "then I have won." The crank can believe
whatever he wants to believes and dares the world to prove to him that
he's wrong. If the world does not succeed, the crank figures that what
he says must have at least a germ of truth. "Otherwise," the self-
deluding crank argues, "they would explain it in such a way that I
would have not choice to admit my error and I would have to shut up."
Fortunately, the crank always has the option of admitting nothing and
simply not shutting up.
Of course, the crank might as well be insisting that 3+9 is 15, and
when the comment appears that this not correct, the crank can simply
insist that it is correct and demand to be convinced that 3+9 is not
15. And the crank is *never* convinced that 3+9 is not what he thought
it was in the first place.
This does not mean that 3+9 is 15, of course. It only means that the
crank is incapable of being educated. It also means that the crank is
not interested in learning how to discover the truth and distinguish
it from mistakes, but is instead only interested in surviving the
fight.
So ask yourself, what is it, exactly, that you hope to gain from
surviving a wrestling match on a usenet newsgroup?
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Your emberassment when you find out who I really am.
Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
|
Everyone has already figured out that you're God! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:54 am Post subject: Re: Science has credos? |
|
|
Mitch Raemsch wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 2:23 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 13, 5:15 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 13, 1:59 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 13, 4:49 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 13, 1:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Yes, I know -- this is the tactic of the crank. "As long as I am still
standing," says the crank, "then I have won." The crank can believe
whatever he wants to believes and dares the world to prove to him that
he's wrong. If the world does not succeed, the crank figures that what
he says must have at least a germ of truth. "Otherwise," the self-
deluding crank argues, "they would explain it in such a way that I
would have not choice to admit my error and I would have to shut up."
Fortunately, the crank always has the option of admitting nothing and
simply not shutting up.
Of course, the crank might as well be insisting that 3+9 is 15, and
when the comment appears that this not correct, the crank can simply
insist that it is correct and demand to be convinced that 3+9 is not
15. And the crank is *never* convinced that 3+9 is not what he thought
it was in the first place.
This does not mean that 3+9 is 15, of course. It only means that the
crank is incapable of being educated. It also means that the crank is
not interested in learning how to discover the truth and distinguish
it from mistakes, but is instead only interested in surviving the
fight.
So ask yourself, what is it, exactly, that you hope to gain from
surviving a wrestling match on a usenet newsgroup?
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Your emberassment when you find out who I really am.
Then you should not hesitate to embarrass me, "Mitch". I shall brace
myself for whatever astounding revelation you may have ready.
PD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
November the 5th.
|
What year, God? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
NoEinstein
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:11 am Post subject: Re: Black holes disproven Now |
|
|
On Jul 10, 5:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 10, 1:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Jul 8, 4:11 am, Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
PD wrote:
There was once a boxer whose strategy was not really to land a blow
but only to remain standing. He trained and trained on taking blows to
the head and to the body without dropping. His rationale was that, as
long as he was standing, he was not defeated. And, as his career
choice produced more and more brain damage, he eventually came to the
conclusion that as long as he was still standing, he had in fact won
the match. It didn't matter that he had no more sensation in his face,
that both eyes were swollen shut, that his nose was broken in several
places and that he was losing blood at an alarming rate, and that he
had never once landed even a glancing punch on his opponent. As long
as he was standing, he viewed himself the victor. The spectators,
however, either couldn't watch the carnage, or they were entranced by
it.
LaMotta vs. Robinson (final match) - February 14, 1951 - Chicago Stadium
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Dear Bob: Einstein liked to ‘play bright’ by writing and memorizing
things to be quoted. He wasn't very good at describing things,
simply. But because he implied that what he was saying WAS simple, he
elevated himself, intellectually. However, Einstein was still just an
85 IQ moron. — NoEinstein —
With a Bachelors, PhD, and Nobel prize in Physics.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Dear Eric: The reason Einstein is your idol is because he is a Jew.
Bias can carry a moron only so far. Einstein's time is up. —
NoEinstein — |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
