man made or natural

keepit wrote:ITN does like to argue. I like to agree.

keepit wrote: IBDM, The science approach as you call it is fine. My preference is to discuss with someone with a constructive attitude.

keepit wrote: The one you said about dollars i particularly fun. You don't even quote me correctly let alone understand my statement.

keepit wrote:
ITN,
What a bunch of argumentative and useless crap.

Your statement about "they can't move the engines forward" is especially bogus and false.

James___ wrote:

keepit wrote:
ITN,
What a bunch of argumentative and useless crap.

Your statement about "they can't move the engines forward" is especially bogus and false.

He'd argue that they moved the plane back and down. I think the problems with the Max8 might be the slight upwards tilt of the engines. During take off, that would definitely help to push the nose up. Airbus didn't do that and has no problems with the "pitch" of it's plane. And that's what the MCAS is compensating for.

keepit wrote:
James,
Looking at the plane it does kind of look like that but that might be just the nacelles and not the engine thrust vector.

ITN does like to argue. I like to agree.

Into the Night wrote:

nemodawson wrote:

James___ wrote:

nemodawson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Harry C wrote:
[quote]nemodawson wrote:
Okay. I'll buy it that the current unproved explanation for CO2 causing global warming has changed to some kind of atmospheric nonsense. I will stick however with what we know about the dynamics of thermal radiation, using hard data and solid mathematics. I will not enter into the "gooey" current unproven speculations which ignore actual blackbody thermal radiation Science. I am pushing well-founded knowledge, not speculation.

I would love to hear your falsification of GHG theory, if that's where you are going.

Everything I've read about GHG, the actual physical process and properties are never explained. There's a great deal of people that are taking advantage of what has long been accepted as the function of GHGs.

I think he's actually on your side. His opinion is that because CO2 is only sensitive to a wavelength of 15 angstroms so it doesn't matter. If I were an emperor penguin watching over an egg, this might matter. If CO2 wasn't as sensitive then that wouldn't be good for the chick or would it?
In reality, emperor penguins incubate their chicks when it's about 193º kelvin. After I saw neo mention 193º kelvin I've been wanting to say that. Thank You.
If CO2 behaved differently then that could affect the mating habits and incubation of penguins. I am being totally serious here. Some animals can't mate or incubate their chicks unless environmental conditions allow for it.
In here I am hated for being an environmentalist. I try to keep quiet about that.

Harry, you'll need to forgive me for this. I doubt few people associate 15 angstroms, 193 kelvins with something other than CO2. Anyone can check and they'll probably find out that the only place on Earth that cold is Antarctica in the middle of winter and that male emperor penguins will be incubating eggs that will become chicks. It seems no one else in here is aware of that. (as an environmentalist I am laughing my ass of on that one, do you know what is 193º kelvins and creates methane? A penguin farting!!!). That's friggin hilarious!!!
I am thinking that right now neo is thinking (I wasn't talking about the south pole). But it does help with perspective.
Still, the south pole during winter gives a perspective of CO2. Does that agree with warmer climates? I don't know if it does. The information is lacking.

Okay. I get the very distinct impression that I have to educate you guys on thermal radiation dynamics. Let us start with the comment that 15 µ peak thermal radiation is a temperature of 193 °K (-112° F) and temperatures in this range have only been recorded in Antarctica. While this is true it misses the fact that 15 µ thermal radiation is a curve under which many other temperatures are covered. Please consult a black body thermal radiation graph for multiple temperatures. You will notice that the area under the 15 µ curve contains the range of typical earth night temperatures from 12 µ to 9.5 µ (-25° F to 90° F). This curve has been integrated by Planck Constant energy values for each wavelength under the curve. That integration confirmed the Stefan-Boltzmann formula for Watts per meter squared. The 15 µ peak wavelength thermal radiation curve incorporates typical earth thermal radiation temperatures as well. Therefore using measurements in W/cm^2 for 15 µ thermal radiation emissions (indicating CO2) is completely credible to define CO2's capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the earth during the night.

If we accept what you say as being correct, then 15 µ is about 200 w/m^2, right? https://www.itacanet.org/the-sun-as-a-source-of-energy/part-2-solar-energy-reaching-the-earths-surface/#2.4.-The-Solar-Spectrum
Then if we consider a value of 0.04% of say 200 w/m^2 then we have an effect of about 8 w/m^2. That's actually an insignificant amount of heat.
Of course if that is added on to natural warming, then it intensifies that some.
From here we would need to associate w/m^2 with temperature which could include relative humidity or humiture as it's called any more if you live in some place like Florida. Then we could establish the significance or lack there of of the 8 w/m^2 increase.

Actually using Stefan Boltzmann for 15 µ /193 °K we get 78.68 W/m^2.

nemodawson wrote:
S-B Constant times temperature to the fourth power equals Watts per meter squared.(5.670373E-8)(193^4)=78.6757 W/m^2. Since our measurements are in "W/cm^2" not "W/m^2" we must divide the "78.68 W/m^2" by "100^2." This returns a value of "0.007868 W/cm^2.

Math error. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

nemodawson wrote:[/b
The Evans study used two FTIR cameras to measure IR thermal radiation coming from the night sky. After filtering out for water vapor,

Not possible.

[b]nemodawson wrote:
the cameras recorded thermal radiation emitted by atmospheric trace gases.

Nope. They recorded IR from the atmosphere.

nemodawson wrote:
The measured "W/cm^2" peaked at 15 µ, clearly indicating the CO2 contribution. 15µ/CO2 peak measured "8x10^6 W/cm^2." If one divides this measured value by the Stefan-Boltzmann
calculation for "193 °K" in "W/cm^2" the result is the emissivity of Carbon dioxide.

WRONG. You cannot measure emissivity that way. Math error. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law or in emissivity.

nemodawson wrote:
The emissivity is the amount a thermal radiation which CO2 can absorb.

WRONG. Emissivity is how well a surface emits light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

nemodawson wrote:
The emissivity rate for CO2 is calculated, using the Evans measurement, as "0.00102" or 1/10 of 1%.

Bad math. Emissivity is not calculable. It must be measured. This is now how you measure it.

nemodawson wrote:
CO2 only has the capacity to absorb 1/10 of 1% of thermal radiation from the earth. You can draw your own conclusion as to CO2's capacity to be a real greenhouse gas.

Absorption of surface emitted IR by the atmosphere does not warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

nemodawson wrote: Where do I start?

nemodawson wrote: Since my mathematical abilities have been pejoratively attacked,

nemodawson wrote: I must show that the attack is founded upon ignorance.

nemodawson wrote: In the first place, the 15 µ wavelength is the peak wavelength of the 15 µ blackbody thermal radiation curve.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Also what is "Fact"? I've been curious about that and you said you could define what a "Fact" is?

Oh pick me! Pick me!

A fact is an argument on which the parties engaged in a discussion/conversation
agree. Everything else is "disputed."

Overjoyed! Here the science frauds are making my point. Facts are based upon an agreement, not external evidence. What better description of The way that consensus science has replaced empiricism and out of their own mouths yet.

For example, in a court of law, the DA opens with "these are the facts of the case" which means these are the things which neither party involved disputes, or that the defense does not contest. Everything else is erefore to be "argued" in court.

A "fact" is an agreement thing. Nothing more. If in a debate someone claims that something that is disputed is actually a "fact" then that person clearly doesn't know what a "fact" is and should probably be dispatched to an adult learning facility for rememdial English tutoring.

What may be a "fact" between two people in a conversation can quickly cease to be a fact once someone else joins the conversation. For example, between two warmizombies posting on Climate_Panic_Now! it might be a "fact" that Global Warming is "observed" and absolutely true ... but then when they both wander into reality and venture into conversations with humans who think for themselves, suddenly their WACKY belief is nothing more than an "argument."



[*find-WHATISAFACT]
.

nemodawson wrote:
Overjoyed! Here the science frauds are making my point. Facts are based upon an agreement, not external evidence. What better description of The way that consensus science has replaced empiricism and out of their own mouths yet.

IBdaMann wrote:

nemodawson wrote:
Overjoyed! Here the science frauds are making my point. Facts are based upon an agreement, not external evidence. What better description of The way that consensus science has replaced empiricism and out of their own mouths yet.

Elation! Semantics-hijacking morons are making my point for me. They never cease and desist in their efforts to install their WACKY opinions as objective Truth.

"Evidence" is totally subjective, both in how it is interpreted and in what even qualifies as "evidence" in the first place. Leftist morons are too stupid to consider that in the court of law, the "evidence" never constitutes "the facts of the case" but is argued and even sought to be "thrown out" as "not evidence."

Leftist morons aren't bright enough to realize that no science is ever based on subjective interpretations and that just because THEY subjectively interpret phenomena through their scientifically illiterate lenses that what THEY therefore consider a "fact" is nowhere near anything resembling any absolute Truth. Nonetheless they believe that if they label something as a "fact" that it is somehow off-limits for debate because they have established absolute truth.

I don't know why the political left is so full of scientifically illiterate morons but they certainly serve as excellent "visual aids" for egregious errors.

Wait, on second thought, I do know why ... the left is the home of dishonesty, hatred, intellectual laziness, fear and thought-loathing. Yep. Got it. It's all clear now.


.

IBdaMann wrote:

nemodawson wrote:
Overjoyed! Here the science frauds are making my point. Facts are based upon an agreement, not external evidence. What better description of The way that consensus science has replaced empiricism and out of their own mouths yet.

Elation! Semantics-hijacking morons are making my point for me. They never cease and desist in their efforts to install their WACKY opinions as objective Truth.

"Evidence" is totally subjective, both in how it is interpreted and in what even qualifies as "evidence" in the first place. Leftist morons are too stupid to consider that in the court of law, the "evidence" never constitutes "the facts of the case" but is argued and even sought to be "thrown out" as "not evidence."

Leftist morons aren't bright enough to realize that no science is ever based on subjective interpretations and that just because THEY subjectively interpret phenomena through their scientifically illiterate lenses that what THEY therefore consider a "fact" is nowhere near anything resembling any absolute Truth. Nonetheless they believe that if they label something as a "fact" that it is somehow off-limits for debate because they have established absolute truth.

I don't know why the political left is so full of scientifically illiterate morons but they certainly serve as excellent "visual aids" for egregious errors.

Wait, on second thought, I do know why ... the left is the home of dishonesty, hatred, intellectual laziness, fear and thought-loathing. Yep. Got it. It's all clear now.

nemodawson wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

nemodawson wrote:
Overjoyed! Here the science frauds are making my point. Facts are based upon an agreement, not external evidence. What better description of The way that consensus science has replaced empiricism and out of their own mouths yet.

Elation! Semantics-hijacking morons are making my point for me. They never cease and desist in their efforts to install their WACKY opinions as objective Truth.

"Evidence" is totally subjective, both in how it is interpreted and in what even qualifies as "evidence" in the first place. Leftist morons are too stupid to consider that in the court of law, the "evidence" never constitutes "the facts of the case" but is argued and even sought to be "thrown out" as "not evidence."

Leftist morons aren't bright enough to realize that no science is ever based on subjective interpretations and that just because THEY subjectively interpret phenomena through their scientifically illiterate lenses that what THEY therefore consider a "fact" is nowhere near anything resembling any absolute Truth. Nonetheless they believe that if they label something as a "fact" that it is somehow off-limits for debate because they have established absolute truth.

I don't know why the political left is so full of scientifically illiterate morons but they certainly serve as excellent "visual aids" for egregious errors.

Wait, on second thought, I do know why ... the left is the home of dishonesty, hatred, intellectual laziness, fear and thought-loathing. Yep. Got it. It's all clear now.

My point is that the means by which "facts" are determined in science has changed and for a reason that science practitioners don't understand. In the 1960s through the 1970s a restructuring of our language occurred under the influence of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein was a stealth actor whose influence has not been fully appreciated. Wittgenstein taught in his book "Philosophical Investigations" that words, especially nouns, could never identify objective, external reality, that the factors and variables in your scientific equations were not and could never be objective facts. All meaning, according to Wittgenstein, was only a social agreement, that there was no difference between the sane view of the world and the insane view except that the sane view was more popular. This idea came into science as a consensus confirmation of scientific facts. The whole of present-day particle theory, based upon quarks, is confirmed solely by consensus.

James___ wrote:
nemodawson,
You're being rude is duly noted. I don't accept that the Stefan-Boltzmann work applies to gases nor will I. Tungsten which was used to verify the Stefan-Boltzmann calculations is about 7,800 times denser than CO2. It's surface area would also be 0.04% because that is the % of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I'll give you something to consider. Our atmosphere doesn't absorb or emit as much heat as you think it does. It's more economical if it doesn't leave. To give you a clue, what is the volume of the atmosphere below the tropopasue at night and then during the day between the Arctic and Antarctic Circles?
Maybe the heat in our atmosphere flows to where our atmosphere is expanding because another part of it is contracting? That couldn't happen because that would tend to agree with Boltzmann's ideal gas law and we can't say that if a gas is excited because the atmosphere is expanding that that has something to do with heat staying in our atmosphere can we?
I mean seriously, they'd need to create a new law in physics and call it something like conservation of energy if that's even possible. It's not, kind of why it's never considered.
Kind of why it doesn't do me a lot of good to worry about this debate. I've said many times that the heat produced from generating and/or using energy might be an issue but no one's thought about atmospheric gases conserving the heat in our environment. I don't think that's been discussed. And if anything, I'd enjoy pursuing natural climate change among other things. Bye

p.s., I know it's a strange thought that our atmosphere can conserve energy (heat) but when a gas contracts and it is moving, it can conserve energy. And when the atmosphere is expanding, could gases conserve that energy/work as heat? I could say that I think it does. After all, the mesopuase is about -100º C. and the tropopause is about -56º C.
You might find this interesting. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003JD004190 It agrees with what I think. Some of these guys in here have heard me say convection to the tropopause is a quicker way to get rid of heat. A denser atmosphere, more CO2 and H2O and less O2 decrease convection. TTL is Tropical Tropopause Layer. Their quotes;
The TTL contains the region in which most of the air enters the stratosphere

Convection dominates the lower portion of the TTL, but the frequency of convection declines rapidly with height

nemodawson wrote:

Will you please show me where density is a component in the Stefan-Boltzmann formula. Also I am completely confused by your inability to understand what the Wien's displacement formula actually means. It can be confirmed by any blackbody graph showing temperatures plotted on a y-axis denominated by W/cm^2 and an x-axis dominated by wavelengths in microns. By finding the peak wavelength for any temperature-defined blackbody curve you will see that the Wien's displacement formula accurately exchanges peak wavelength with the temperature. I suspect that part of the problem with your inability to comprehend the Wien's formula is that it is a partial quantum formula which can be derived by quantum-dimensional mathematics. The quantum origins of Wien can be reviewed in a PDF on my website:
https://www.quantum-dimension.com/co2-not-a-greenhouse-gas.html

Click on "CO2-not-a-greenhouse-gas.pdf"

nemodawson wrote: The whole of present-day particle theory, based upon quarks, is confirmed solely by consensus.

IBdaMann wrote:

nemodawson wrote: The whole of present-day particle theory, based upon quarks, is confirmed solely by consensus.

Every time you post you demonstrate that you know nothing of science. It's almost like you never went to school.

No science is based on consensus. No science is determined by democratic vote.

No science is ever confirmed.

You use entirely the wrong words. You, of all people, should be taking copious notes on what you are taught here.


.

James___ wrote:
If you accept it as a fact, then it is a fact.

nemodawson wrote:... the means by which "facts" are determined in science

MarcusR wrote:
What is it in atmospheric radiation that you think violates thermodynamics ?

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:ITN does like to argue. I like to agree.

Into the Night normally takes the science approach and he questions things.

nemodawson wrote:the 15 µ wavelength is the peak wavelength of the 15 µ blackbody thermal radiation curve.

IBdaMann wrote:It's almost like you never went to school.

tmiddles wrote: A "fact" is the actual truth and reality.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Into the Night normally takes the science approach and he questions things.

ITN never argues he simply throws out platitudes. If you try to engage him in a argument he runs away claiming he already answered that in another post.

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
If you accept it as a fact, then it is a fact.

No James that's not the definition of the word "fact". Correctly used English would be "If you accept it as a fact, then that is your choice". A "fact" is the actual truth and reality. You can get the facts wrong but the true facts remain. You can have a version of the facts that's inaccurate, but the real facts remain, unaffected by your inaccuracy in describing them. If you want to join ITN/IBD and argue with the dictionary and say "Fact" means something other than:
"something that actually exists; reality; truth:"
What word do you use for that meaning instead? Why would you want to defy the English speaking population by inventing a new definition for a word?

nemodawson wrote:... the means by which "facts" are determined in science

This is a correct use of the word. The fact is independent of the determination of that fact. You might get it right or wrong but you cannot change the actual facts in doing so.

MarcusR wrote:
What is it in atmospheric radiation that you think violates thermodynamics ?

See the links in my sig. The opening posts address the ITN/IBD fantasy directly.

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:ITN does like to argue. I like to agree.

Into the Night normally takes the science approach and he questions things.

I don't think that's accurate at all, either of you guys. ITN never argues he simply throws out platitudes. If you try to engage him in a argument he runs away claiming he already answered that in another post. He acts as though he is submitting government forms to office of fallacies. It's clear to me his only goal it to ruin this board.
But arguers argue, they done run away. Look at the posts in my sig, he argues very little in those topics. Saying "Nuh uh" and "No it's not" without an actual argument isn't arguing.

nemodawson wrote:the 15 µ wavelength is the peak wavelength of the 15 µ blackbody thermal radiation curve.

So when you say 15 µ radiation you mean the whole curve not just that exact frequency? Is that conventional in talking about radiation in atmospheric science? I'm honestly asking I don't know. Is that the red line below?: (link

IBdaMann wrote:It's almost like you never went to school.

IBD didn't learn science from a school or textbook according to him. He learned it in the oral tradition and in his personal lab work from some mystery man:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:So help me out here. How did you learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why do you trust that it's not made up garbage?

Someone explained the science to me, as I have to you, and then I was able to go into a lab and apply the scientific method. I could not show it to be false so I can't call it garbage.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

James___ wrote:That's a paradox.

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:That's a paradox.

No clue what you're talking about.

The definition of words can be found here:
https://www.dictionary.com/

James___ wrote: Sadly, you got it wrong. You're suggesting that because I speak Engleske as a 2nd language that I'm ignorant. You are simply promoting the fact that like Harvey, you have 2 American parents and are naturally superior.
I disagree. Please offer proofs that people with 2 American parents and who speak Engleske as a 1st language are naturally superior.
This claim that Pure Americans are superior requires proof. And tmiddles, I'm not an American even though I am from Ohio and have 2 service connected disabilities according to the VA.
For someone to be one of your kind, both their mommy and daddy need to be from America. Do you know what snakker means? Maybe mich? How about apres vous? And when you tell me , Tu snakker Angleske? Do you know what that means? English is my 2nd language. I am sorry I learned your god damned ****ing language. Feel better?

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: Sadly, you got it wrong. You're suggesting that because I speak Engleske as a 2nd language that I'm ignorant. You are simply promoting the fact that like Harvey, you have 2 American parents and are naturally superior.
I disagree. Please offer proofs that people with 2 American parents and who speak Engleske as a 1st language are naturally superior.
This claim that Pure Americans are superior requires proof. And tmiddles, I'm not an American even though I am from Ohio and have 2 service connected disabilities according to the VA.
For someone to be one of your kind, both their mommy and daddy need to be from America. Do you know what snakker means? Maybe mich? How about apres vous? And when you tell me , Tu snakker Angleske? Do you know what that means? English is my 2nd language. I am sorry I learned your god damned ****ing language. Feel better?

James__, my wife is an immigrant. Are you saying that tmiddles is bagging on my kids? Do I need to have a talk with him? You just say the word.


.

IBdaMann wrote:

nemodawson wrote: The whole of present-day particle theory, based upon quarks, is confirmed solely by consensus.

Every time you post you demonstrate that you know nothing of science. It's almost like you never went to school.

No science is based on consensus. No science is determined by democratic vote.

No science is ever confirmed.

You use entirely the wrong words. You, of all people, should be taking copious notes on what you are taught here.


.

copious notes

Copious notes

copious notes.

the scientific method,

copious notes.

dependent

independent

nemodawson wrote: I am supposed to take copious notes from people who have converted science into a really bad joke.

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:
If you accept it as a fact, then it is a fact.

No James that's not the definition of the word "fact".

tmiddles wrote:
Correctly used English would be "If you accept it as a fact, then that is your choice".

tmiddles wrote:
A "fact" is the actual truth and reality.

tmiddles wrote:
You can get the facts wrong but the true facts remain.

tmiddles wrote:
You can have a version of the facts that's inaccurate,

tmiddles wrote:
but the real facts remain,

tmiddles wrote:
unaffected by your inaccuracy in describing them.

tmiddles wrote:
If you want to join ITN/IBD and argue with the dictionary

tmiddles wrote:
and say "Fact" means something other than:
"something that actually exists; reality; truth:"

tmiddles wrote:
What word do you use for that meaning instead?

tmiddles wrote:
Why would you want to defy the English speaking population by inventing a new definition for a word?

tmiddles wrote:

nemodawson wrote:... the means by which "facts" are determined in science

This is a correct use of the word. The fact is independent of the determination of that fact. You might get it right or wrong but you cannot change the actual facts in doing so.

tmiddles wrote:

MarcusR wrote:
What is it in atmospheric radiation that you think violates thermodynamics ?

See the links in my sig. The opening posts address the ITN/IBD fantasy directly.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote:ITN does like to argue. I like to agree.

Into the Night normally takes the science approach and he questions things.

I don't think that's accurate at all, either of you guys.
ITN never argues he simply throws out platitudes.

tmiddles wrote:
If you try to engage him in a argument he runs away claiming he already answered that in another post.

tmiddles wrote:
He acts as though he is submitting government forms to office of fallacies.

tmiddles wrote:
It's clear to me his only goal it to ruin this board.

tmiddles wrote:
But arguers argue, they done run away.

tmiddles wrote:
Look at the posts in my sig, he argues very little in those topics.

tmiddles wrote:
Saying "Nuh uh" and "No it's not" without an actual argument isn't arguing.

tmiddles wrote:

nemodawson wrote:the 15 µ wavelength is the peak wavelength of the 15 µ blackbody thermal radiation curve.

So when you say 15 µ radiation you mean the whole curve not just that exact frequency?

tmiddles wrote:
Is that conventional in talking about radiation in atmospheric science?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:It's almost like you never went to school.

IBD didn't learn science from a school or textbook according to him.

tmiddles wrote:
He learned it in the oral tradition and in his personal lab work

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:That's a paradox.

No clue what you're talking about.

The definition of words can be found here:
https://www.dictionary.com/

IBdaMann wrote:

nemodawson wrote: I am supposed to take copious notes from people who have converted science into a really bad joke.

Not "supposed to" ... the correct word is "should." Anyone noting the pride you take in your scientific illiteracy will never "suppose" that you are going to make any attempt to get it right.

If you ever want to get the scientific method right, let me know and I'll help you out. Otherwise, I'll just have fun picking apart your lame attempts to "sound" smart.

Have a great day.


.

have a great day

scientific method right.

scientific method right.

nemodawson wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

nemodawson wrote: I am supposed to take copious notes from people who have converted science into a really bad joke.

Not "supposed to" ... the correct word is "should." Anyone noting the pride you take in your scientific illiteracy will never "suppose" that you are going to make any attempt to get it right.

If you ever want to get the scientific method right, let me know and I'll help you out. Otherwise, I'll just have fun picking apart your lame attempts to "sound" smart.

Have a great day.


.

I'm not going to

have a great day

communicating with you since you're obviously a phony. I had the nerve to actually give a brief description of the scientific method and your response is that you will show me how to get the

scientific method right.

Neary an example of how I didn't get the

scientific method right.

I am the author of two books showing the corruption of science by modern linguistic philosophy. The most detailed of these is the last

Poisoned Science.

Poison Science

may be reviewed at my website Address below:

https://www.quantum-dimension.com/

nemodawson wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

nemodawson wrote: I am supposed to take copious notes from people who have converted science into a really bad joke.

Not "supposed to" ... the correct word is "should." Anyone noting the pride you take in your scientific illiteracy will never "suppose" that you are going to make any attempt to get it right.

If you ever want to get the scientific method right, let me know and I'll help you out. Otherwise, I'll just have fun picking apart your lame attempts to "sound" smart.

Have a great day.


.

I'm not going to

have a great day

communicating with you since you're obviously a phony. I had the nerve to actually give a brief description of the scientific method and your response is that you will show me how to get the

scientific method right.

Neary an example of how I didn't get the

scientific method right.

I am the author of two books showing the corruption of science by modern linguistic philosophy. The most detailed of these is the last

Poisoned Science.

Poison Science

may be reviewed at my website Address below:

https://www.quantum-dimension.com/

Into the Night wrote:Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Your definition of science has long since been debunked:
Google: 7 results, pretty much just you

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:...debunked:Google...

...Irrational.

Into the Night wrote:

nemodawson wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

nemodawson wrote: I am supposed to take copious notes from people who have converted science into a really bad joke.

Not "supposed to" ... the correct word is "should." Anyone noting the pride you take in your scientific illiteracy will never "suppose" that you are going to make any attempt to get it right.

If you ever want to get the scientific method right, let me know and I'll help you out. Otherwise, I'll just have fun picking apart your lame attempts to "sound" smart.

Have a great day.


.

I'm not going to

have a great day

communicating with you since you're obviously a phony. I had the nerve to actually give a brief description of the scientific method and your response is that you will show me how to get the

scientific method right.

Neary an example of how I didn't get the

scientific method right.

I am the author of two books showing the corruption of science by modern linguistic philosophy. The most detailed of these is the last

Poisoned Science.

Poison Science

may be reviewed at my website Address below:

https://www.quantum-dimension.com/

I don't care how many books you've written. Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

nemodawson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

nemodawson wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

nemodawson wrote: I am supposed to take copious notes from people who have converted science into a really bad joke.

Not "supposed to" ... the correct word is "should." Anyone noting the pride you take in your scientific illiteracy will never "suppose" that you are going to make any attempt to get it right.

If you ever want to get the scientific method right, let me know and I'll help you out. Otherwise, I'll just have fun picking apart your lame attempts to "sound" smart.

Have a great day.


.

I'm not going to

have a great day

communicating with you since you're obviously a phony. I had the nerve to actually give a brief description of the scientific method and your response is that you will show me how to get the

scientific method right.

Neary an example of how I didn't get the

scientific method right.

I am the author of two books showing the corruption of science by modern linguistic philosophy. The most detailed of these is the last

Poisoned Science.

Poison Science

may be reviewed at my website Address below:

https://www.quantum-dimension.com/

I don't care how many books you've written. Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Look, my arguments are not mere word games.

nemodawson wrote:
In my last book showing the destructive influence of Wittgenstein on science, I gave concrete examples. I showed how particle theory had deserted the neutrino/electron conversion mathematics of Enrico Fermi for particle/antiparticle annihilation mathematics of Dirac.

A Dirac "positron" was allegedly discovered in two cloud-chamber observations of positively-charged particles with masses closer to electrons then to protons (‎Carl Anderson and Frédéric and Irène Joliot-Curie, 1932). It was assumed that the low mass, positively-charged particles ware Dirac's "positrons" rather than the "proto-neutrinos" implied by Fermi. Although positively-charged, low-mass particles were revealed in the cloud chambers, those same cloud chambers did not reveal any gamma emissions which Dirac's positron/electrons annihilation required but which the Fermi proto-neutrino did not. Such gamma emissions were known to be a component of positive beta decay (the conversion of a proton to a neutron). It was proposed that the proton was converted to a neutron by the emission of Dirac's positron. This has been argued for 80 years, despite the fact that James Chadwick in the 1930s demonstrated that the neutron was created by the merging of an electron with a proton with a gain in mass of two to three times the mass of the electron. It is being argue that the lower mass proton becomes the higher mass neutron by the emission of a particle with a mass of the electron. The only reason this stupidity has been allowed to continue is the invention of "quark theory." There has been a distinct desertion 0f empirical data (such as Chadwick's) to be replaced by consensus acceptance of unproved theory (quarks). This and many other examples are contained in my book Poisoned Science;
...deleted Holy Advertisement...