Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 You don't have a theory, you have a conjecture, and belief doesn't factor into the mix when doing science. Would you like to review what's behind door number three? Belief doesn't factor in? Are you out of your mind? You perform scientific tests and you say there is no belief or disbelief in the results? No belief in what you are doing is correct or incorrect? No belief system=vegetable. Pull the plug, you don't need life without belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The problem is the word. You have a 'belief', a poorly-formulated, vague idea without any sort of evidence or logical basis. Scientists have 'hypotheses' which are specific, detailed ideas based on prior work and observations. And nobody 'believes' results. That's why we use statistics. Damn, you really *don't* know what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Too lazy to be honest. I was never good in school. I have no clue of the scientific method. Don't sell yourself short. I'm guessing you aren't limited to the scientific method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 The problem is the word. You have a 'belief', a poorly-formulated, vague idea without any sort of evidence or logical basis. Scientists have 'hypotheses' which are specific, detailed ideas based on prior work and observations. And nobody 'believes' results. That's why we use statistics. Damn, you really *don't* know what you're talking about. You're so wrapped up in the methodology of it all you can't see straight. Get a grip on yourself, we are talking about the physical universe, not your method of measuring it, using junk to measure with. No wonder science is so ate up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 You're so wrapped up in the methodology of it all you can't see straight. You mean the methodology you flatly admitted you don't have a clue about a mere 8 posts ago? How would you know? No wonder science is so ate up. I know you admitted that you don't know anything about science, but I'm pretty such science is not a type of food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 You're so wrapped up in the methodology of it all you can't see straight. Get a grip on yourself, we are talking about the physical universe, not your method of measuring it, using junk to measure with.No wonder science is so ate up. Using that methodology rigorously is what allows you to precisely determine how the physical world works. As opposed to saying any old thing that comes into your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) You mean the methodology you flatly admitted you don't have a clue about a mere 8 posts ago? How would you know? Yes, that would be the one, and I'm not concerned with how that works, it's BS, it isn't the physical reality. I know you admitted that you don't know anything about science, but I'm pretty such science is not a type of food. Food is mass, distance, and time. Does your science know how mass, distance and time operates in this universe? I do. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedUsing that methodology rigorously is what allows you to precisely determine how the physical world works. As opposed to saying any old thing that comes into your head. How's that working for you? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedUsing that methodology rigorously is what allows you to precisely determine how the physical world works. Does the Earth get closer or further away from the Sun? A simple question your science should have asked and answered at the beginning of its quest. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWhy won't anyone answer that question? Afraid of what people might think? Would they call you crazy? :rolleyes: Just say it gets closer or gets further away. What does your science say it does? Edited March 25, 2009 by Duration Consecutive posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 isn't it time we put another dent on the ban hammer with this mentally devoid monkey scrotum that calls itself duration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 How's that working for you? Pretty well. It's not working for you because you keep relying on information it provides while simultaneously stating that it doesn't work. Which is clearly somewhat self-defeating. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedisn't it time we put another dent on the ban hammer with this mentally devoid monkey scrotum that calls itself duration? No, I have something much better in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Pretty well. It's not working for you because you keep relying on information it provides while simultaneously stating that it doesn't work. Which is clearly somewhat self-defeating. I use the bare minimum that I know to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 So that would be nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 So that would be nothing? Minimum does not equal zero, as "nothing" does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 But using "the bare minimum which you know to be true" must be equivalent to using nothing since you have no way of objectively verifying anything which you claim to know. See? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Duration, do you honestly not see the irony in saying that something that is predicted and experimentally proven by modern science is not physical and yet believe your random thoughts which you've pulled out of thin air are better. Who do you think you are to just be able to make up crap with no evidence, claim you've no idea how science works, what it is or infact have any knowledge of it what so ever but it must be wrong? Are you really that desperate for attention that you feel the need to just make up crap despite being shown time and time again that the universe does not agree with you? There is no shame in admitting you don't understand something, people spend their lives trying to understand one very very small area of science... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 But using "the bare minimum which you know to be true" must be equivalent to using nothing since you have no way of objectively verifying anything which you claim to know. See? I use the very standards that we have created, so when I speak, it is correct, because I use the standards properly, unlike Einstein's illusions, which are not mathematically sound, ie, it isn't reality, it's an illusion of perception. As Klaynos already pointed out, torque is always correct, it doesn't lie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Of course if you measure torque in a two different reference frames you will measure a different RPM in both of them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Duration, do you honestly not see the irony in saying that something that is predicted and experimentally proven by modern science is not physical and yet believe your random thoughts which you've pulled out of thin air are better. Who do you think you are to just be able to make up crap with no evidence, claim you've no idea how science works, what it is or infact have any knowledge of it what so ever but it must be wrong? Are you really that desperate for attention that you feel the need to just make up crap despite being shown time and time again that the universe does not agree with you? There is no shame in admitting you don't understand something, people spend their lives trying to understand one very very small area of science... Before you say another word to me, I want to know from you, in one word, does the Earth get farther away from the Sun? Yes or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 So both values are always correct... or in any of the infinite other reference frames you care to pick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 So both values are always correct... or in any of the infinite other reference frames you care to pick... Does the Earth get further away from the Sun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Klaynos, if you don't believe in relativity it doesn't affect you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Klaynos, if you don't believe in relativity it doesn't affect you. Belief has nothing to do with science! :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Before you say another word to me, I want to know from you, in one word, does the Earth get farther away from the Sun? Yes or no? It stays in about the same place, there is some decay due to friction, but there is also a slight photon pressure which acts against this. IIRC there is also a slight decay due to tidal forces... http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991AJ....101.2287Q appears to be relevant, I'll read it at some point when I get time. The question like most in science doesn't have a Yes or No answer. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedKlaynos, if you don't believe in relativity it doesn't affect you. That's good then, so if we stop believing the internet will stop working... now THERE's a belief system I can get into bed with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 It stays in about the same place, there is some decay due to friction, but there is also a slight photon pressure which acts against this. IIRC there is also a slight decay due to tidal forces... http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991AJ....101.2287Q appears to be relevant, I'll read it at some point when I get time. The question like most in science doesn't have a Yes or No answer. No, the question now has an answer, as I already answered it, and correctly I might add. The mass comes from the core and travels away. Matter does not crash into the nucleus, it comes from it. There is no perpetual motion. LOGIC, Klaynos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 No, the question now has an answer, as I already answered it, and correctly I might add. It does have an answer, it's just more complicated than you are assuming. Prove it, make a mathematical prediction from first principles. The mass comes from the core and travels away. Matter does not crash into the nucleus, it comes from it. There is no perpetual motion. LOGIC, Klaynos. You have NO evidence. You have proved nothing there is no logic here only random crap spewing out of your head. It's as logical to say that the earth is an egg laid by a gian unicorn which came from the galactic black hole and died and turned into the sun after giving birth to the planets... You've no evidence, the current planet formation models make predictions and are based on reality, you might not be familiar with reality it's what happens around you and what science MUST be compared to mathematically else you're just talking BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I want to hear more about this egg-laying space unicorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts