| 05-06-2017 22:46 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.
Science has no proofs.
And yet another demonstration of the mentality of deadlynightshade. Gravity has no proof. The existance of the stars in the sky has no proof. Disease has no proof. And you have proof of that.
Observation is not science. Stars are observed objects. Gravity is an observed force. Disease might not even be a disease. That's more of a definition than anything else.
You really should learn what is and what is not science.
At what point does you ignorance get so great that even you cannot support it.
You still aren't learning.
Wake wrote:
Stars were nothing more than lights in the sky before scientific research revealed them for what they are. And they are still nothing more than lights in the sky. We still call them stars, too.
Wake wrote:
Disease was something that people didn't even know was communicable until science showed it as such. Yes they did. Don't be an idiot.
Wake wrote:
The essence of gravity was not even understood - down was simply down - until Sir Isacc Newton described it as a universal constant.
Down is still simply down. Newton did not create or redefine gravity at all.
Wake wrote:
Tell us this was nothing more than observation you nitwit.
Just observations and definitions, dumbass.
I see you are an experienced astrophysicist as well as all your other talents. I see you have to try to belittle people to 'prove' your argument.
Wake wrote:
Stars are simply lights in the sky. What do YOU call them? Darks in the sky?
Wake wrote:
Interesting. Newton did not use science at all. He not only used science, he created science. Gravity was simply a given (an observation). He did not try to explain where it came from. He only built a relationship with mass, distance, and gravity...a brilliant connection.
Wake wrote:
He simply said something. Again you prove your worth. Since you seem to be dropping to using contextomies and belittling people, you are become that which you despise.
Wake wrote:
But your real best is that people did know that disease was communicable. They did.
Wake wrote:
We always wondered by people staying in cities when plaque struck. Cities have economies. Some people DID leave the cities when plaque struck (those that could afford to).
Wake wrote:
I guess they just weren't as smart as you.
I guess you are making a compositional error. You do this from time to time. This a particularly serious fallacy that can lead you into bigotry and racism. You should be more careful.
Now you don't believe in my Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. That puts you squarely in the Millennial Generation and so it's plain why you are unable to use science in any meaningful way.
HUH???!?
1) I am not the federal government. I don't work for the federal government. The Constitution of the United States applies only to the federal government, and for certain limits, the State governments. Attempted redefinition of the Constitution of the United States.
2) How am I limiting your opinion? I you REALLY want to be a bigot, you are free to be so. I am cautioning you. Attempted redefinition of 'caution' or 'warning' as 'limit of speech'.
3) Your assumption of my age is grossly wrong. Age beyond childhood has nothing to do with the ability to understand science. There are actually quite a few children that understand science better than you do, though they don't know it.
Now do you want to try a different non-sequitur argument?
In person if you talked to me like that I would simply beat you into a wheelchair.
Threats of violence now? You apparently feel that someone is trying to control what you say. Why are you so paranoid. No one can control what you say. No one can control what you think. No one can control what you believe in. That's why these are rights acknowledged by the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution does not grant rights. It only acknowledges them.
The Constitution only affects the federal government (with the exceptions I mentioned). It does not affect anything else. I think your knowledge of what a right is is sadly very distorted.
Wake wrote:
I believe you would have wanted me to respect your right to free speech at that point despite the fact that I am not the federal government. You don't have a choice. Neither does the federal government.
Wake wrote:
Since you do not understand science regardless of your age it doesn't much matter now does it? And you are so clearly of the Millennial Generation and their supremely uneducated ignorance it's pretty clear who and what you are. Now you are making a compositional error involving people. Now you are being a bigot.
Wake wrote:
My wife and all her friends are teachers and they all have precisely the same opinion of the Millennials. Bigotry is bigotry. It doesn't matter if someone agrees with the bigotry.
Wake wrote:
You are an illness upon this Earth and I for one believe that the majority of you should be eliminated. More threats of violence now, even of death?
Wake wrote:
Most teachers are retiring as soon as they reach minimum age for qualifying for teacher's retirement plans because, like you, all of the Millennials are like trying to deal with ADHD ADHD is psychobabble. It is not a disease or a condition.
Wake wrote:
and Turret's Syndrome cases. A real condition. It can be treated.
Wake wrote:
Do you want to meet me someplace and explain your position to me?
Sounds like you really want to commit a violent act to support your bigotry.
If you want to go to war, you must face the very real prospect that you could lose. In this case, you could lose your life.
May I suggest you calm down? This kind of melt down may result in you getting banned from this forum, if I know the forum owner's opinions at all.
I know quite a few bars that would ban you as well for your threats.
Bigotry is a fallacy. So is the argument of the Stick. You will not solve your problems by violence. You will only hurt yourself.
This isn't a threat since I don't know who you are or where you're located. This is information of what would happen to you if you talk to someone like me in the same manner you post here. But there's no need to worry about that because people who post like you are cowards in person.
Then you tell us that ADHD isn't a recognized condition since you have such a great learning in psychology as well as the inability to understand mathematics of the simplest kind.
Stand in front of me and tell me I will only hurt myself. If you know a bar where I'd be banned it's a fairy bar. There are a lot of them in San Francisco. Is that where you are? |
| 06-06-2017 04:10 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.
Science has no proofs.
And yet another demonstration of the mentality of deadlynightshade. Gravity has no proof. The existance of the stars in the sky has no proof. Disease has no proof. And you have proof of that.
Observation is not science. Stars are observed objects. Gravity is an observed force. Disease might not even be a disease. That's more of a definition than anything else.
You really should learn what is and what is not science.
At what point does you ignorance get so great that even you cannot support it.
You still aren't learning.
Wake wrote:
Stars were nothing more than lights in the sky before scientific research revealed them for what they are. And they are still nothing more than lights in the sky. We still call them stars, too.
Wake wrote:
Disease was something that people didn't even know was communicable until science showed it as such. Yes they did. Don't be an idiot.
Wake wrote:
The essence of gravity was not even understood - down was simply down - until Sir Isacc Newton described it as a universal constant.
Down is still simply down. Newton did not create or redefine gravity at all.
Wake wrote:
Tell us this was nothing more than observation you nitwit.
Just observations and definitions, dumbass.
I see you are an experienced astrophysicist as well as all your other talents. I see you have to try to belittle people to 'prove' your argument.
Wake wrote:
Stars are simply lights in the sky. What do YOU call them? Darks in the sky?
Wake wrote:
Interesting. Newton did not use science at all. He not only used science, he created science. Gravity was simply a given (an observation). He did not try to explain where it came from. He only built a relationship with mass, distance, and gravity...a brilliant connection.
Wake wrote:
He simply said something. Again you prove your worth. Since you seem to be dropping to using contextomies and belittling people, you are become that which you despise.
Wake wrote:
But your real best is that people did know that disease was communicable. They did.
Wake wrote:
We always wondered by people staying in cities when plaque struck. Cities have economies. Some people DID leave the cities when plaque struck (those that could afford to).
Wake wrote:
I guess they just weren't as smart as you.
I guess you are making a compositional error. You do this from time to time. This a particularly serious fallacy that can lead you into bigotry and racism. You should be more careful.
Now you don't believe in my Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. That puts you squarely in the Millennial Generation and so it's plain why you are unable to use science in any meaningful way.
HUH???!?
1) I am not the federal government. I don't work for the federal government. The Constitution of the United States applies only to the federal government, and for certain limits, the State governments. Attempted redefinition of the Constitution of the United States.
2) How am I limiting your opinion? I you REALLY want to be a bigot, you are free to be so. I am cautioning you. Attempted redefinition of 'caution' or 'warning' as 'limit of speech'.
3) Your assumption of my age is grossly wrong. Age beyond childhood has nothing to do with the ability to understand science. There are actually quite a few children that understand science better than you do, though they don't know it.
Now do you want to try a different non-sequitur argument?
In person if you talked to me like that I would simply beat you into a wheelchair.
Threats of violence now? You apparently feel that someone is trying to control what you say. Why are you so paranoid. No one can control what you say. No one can control what you think. No one can control what you believe in. That's why these are rights acknowledged by the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution does not grant rights. It only acknowledges them.
The Constitution only affects the federal government (with the exceptions I mentioned). It does not affect anything else. I think your knowledge of what a right is is sadly very distorted.
Wake wrote:
I believe you would have wanted me to respect your right to free speech at that point despite the fact that I am not the federal government. You don't have a choice. Neither does the federal government.
Wake wrote:
Since you do not understand science regardless of your age it doesn't much matter now does it? And you are so clearly of the Millennial Generation and their supremely uneducated ignorance it's pretty clear who and what you are. Now you are making a compositional error involving people. Now you are being a bigot.
Wake wrote:
My wife and all her friends are teachers and they all have precisely the same opinion of the Millennials. Bigotry is bigotry. It doesn't matter if someone agrees with the bigotry.
Wake wrote:
You are an illness upon this Earth and I for one believe that the majority of you should be eliminated. More threats of violence now, even of death?
Wake wrote:
Most teachers are retiring as soon as they reach minimum age for qualifying for teacher's retirement plans because, like you, all of the Millennials are like trying to deal with ADHD ADHD is psychobabble. It is not a disease or a condition.
Wake wrote:
and Turret's Syndrome cases. A real condition. It can be treated.
Wake wrote:
Do you want to meet me someplace and explain your position to me?
Sounds like you really want to commit a violent act to support your bigotry.
If you want to go to war, you must face the very real prospect that you could lose. In this case, you could lose your life.
May I suggest you calm down? This kind of melt down may result in you getting banned from this forum, if I know the forum owner's opinions at all.
I know quite a few bars that would ban you as well for your threats.
Bigotry is a fallacy. So is the argument of the Stick. You will not solve your problems by violence. You will only hurt yourself.
This isn't a threat since I don't know who you are or where you're located. Yes it is. You are advocating violence and even death to those who disagree with you. Sorry, but if you want to start that sort of shit you will pay the price for it.
Wake wrote:
This is information of what would happen to you if you talk to someone like me in the same manner you post here.
I talk to everyone like this. No one has decided to start violence. If they did, they are taking a BIG risk.
Wake wrote:
But there's no need to worry about that because people who post like you are cowards in person. Another statement of bigotry.
Wake wrote:
Then you tell us that ADHD isn't a recognized condition It is recognized only by the psychoquacks. It is psychobabble.
Wake wrote:
since you have such a great learning in psychology You do not know what I am trained in or why I know what psychology actually studies as opposed to the psychoquacks out there.
Wake wrote:
as well as the inability to understand mathematics of the simplest kind. No, this is YOUR problem. Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Stand in front of me and tell me I will only hurt myself. You are trying to advocate violence again.
Wake wrote:
If you know a bar where I'd be banned it's a fairy bar. Another statement of bigotry.
Bars don't want fights breaking out. They WILL ban you. Practically every casino would as well.
Wake wrote:
There are a lot of them in San Francisco. A 'lot of them' doesn't mean anything. Argument from randU.
Wake wrote:
Is that where you are?
You haven't been paying attention, have you? I have already described my general area. Hint: It is not San Francisco.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-06-2017 22:06 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote: (fear and loathing)
I am quite sure that you understand that if you were to talk as you do, to my face, I would kick your backside up the street. If that scares you that is your problem and not mine. Perhaps it will teach you to talk more politely to people.
You talk about "science" and then make comment after comment that shows that you know nothing about real science. Your entire definition of science is totally incorrect since almost NO science is "falsifiable".
There is really no discussing real science with you when you believe that science does not include observations. Even your Stefan-Boltzman equation WAS AN OBSERVATION. And since it uses the emissivity as a correction it may not even be falsifiable. It is based on nothing more than observations of many people over many years and wasn't even originally designed to do anything you believe it to represent.
In order to make ANY comments on science you first must know what it is. You do not. And when faced with facts from someone that has actually been in the lab you simply deny it so that you can continue your fraudulent comments.
Again - it is people like you that are injuring the cause of fighting AGW. You turn yourself into a target instead of the false science of global warming. |
| 07-06-2017 00:05 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: (fear and loathing)
...deleted component apologized for... Dropping this due to apology given after this statement.
Wake wrote:
You talk about "science" and then make comment after comment that shows that you know nothing about real science. Your entire definition of science is totally incorrect since almost NO science is "falsifiable".
All theories of science MUST be falsifiable. There are no exceptions. It is what separates a non-scientific theory from a scientific one.
Wake wrote:
There is really no discussing real science with you when you believe that science does not include observations. Science is not observations. Observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
In brief (I will not write a book here):
Observation is the process by which you interpret the world through the raw data your senses provide you. Whether those senses are augmented by instrumentation is irrelevant.
This means that you must interpret everything you see, hear, smell, touch, or taste. That interpretation incorporates what your senses are telling you into a personal view of the universe. That personal view is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint. No one has the same personal view of another.
This means observations can be subject to 'illusions' in any of the senses. It is subject to incorrect interpretation. The American Indians looked upon the Sun as a spirit. It's rise everyday gives life to the Earth through it's blessing. Some still believe this.
Western Civilization also went through a time when the Sun was some kind of god. Now most modern day individuals now see the Sun as a distant fusion reactor and the Earth just happened to be in that happy place in it's orbit to support life here.
Still others look upon the Sun and the Earth as the same things, but that their relationship was designed and not by accident.
All see the same thing: the sunrise.
All interpret it quite differently: A god, a spirit, a fusion reactor that happened by accident, a fusion reactor that happened by design.
This is why science does not use observation. Observations may inspire a theory, but they cannot prove, sanctify, bless, confirm, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory. Science simply does not use supporting evidence. Once the theory exists, observation is discarded. A theory does not need observation to be created. Other methods are thought experiments, mathematical proofs, logical proofs, etc.
Wake wrote:
Even your Stefan-Boltzman equation WAS AN OBSERVATION. You have just made the same paradox. If S-B applies only to an ideal theoretical, it cannot observed.
Wake wrote:
And since it uses the emissivity as a correction it may not even be falsifiable. It is. All you have to do to falsify it is to find a single case where radiance does NOT increase with temperature using the same constant for emissivity.
Wake wrote:
It is based on nothing more than observations of many people over many years and wasn't even originally designed to do anything you believe it to represent. You can't observe a theoretical ideal.
Wake wrote:
In order to make ANY comments on science you first must know what it is.
Science is a collection of falsifiable theories that describe nature. These theories must be externally consistent with each other. That's it. That's the definition of science.
Wake wrote:
You do not. I just stated it...yet again. This definition is not my invention.
Wake wrote:
And when faced with facts from someone that has actually been in the lab
A lab is not science. Science is everywhere...all the time...in the lab and out.
BTW, I have a lab coat too.
Wake wrote:
you simply deny it so that you can continue your fraudulent comments. A comment is never fraudulent. It is based on my opinions. My comments do not lie about my opinions.
Wake wrote:
Again - it is people like you that are injuring the cause of fighting AGW.
The Church of Global Warming injures it's own cause.
Wake wrote:
You turn yourself into a target instead of the false science of global warming.
Any Outsider of The Religion is a target. You might as well get used to it.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-06-2017 01:20 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote: A lab is not science. Science is everywhere...all the time...in the lab and out.
Again and again you prove that you don't know what you're talking about. There's no sense in carrying on any conversations with you because it's always the same thing - what YOU think is the truth no matter what the science is. |
|
| 07-06-2017 02:12 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: A lab is not science. Science is everywhere...all the time...in the lab and out.
Again and again you prove that you don't know what you're talking about. There's no sense in carrying on any conversations with you because it's always the same thing - what YOU think is the truth no matter what the science is.
Why do you think science is restricted to a lab?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |