This is not exactly Flat Earth, however it might help to know it. I was told very firmly that I am a fool as I do not use an electric toothbrush by my dentist. I am 61 and have all my teeth and only one filling which most likely was due to impaction. So I bought one and did see a difference. Then I went on holiday and took only an old style brush. My gums bleed badly as they never had. The cure is simple. I now use both. I tracked the cause to the motor current limiter. It simply for me is not strong enough, the wording suggests to maintain optimum working. I doubt that. It's not very important if you think I am right. However, how would it halm you to think I might be? A high grade standard brush can be bought for 3 = £1 made by one of the famous brands. Perhaps less in the USA. Brand is C--g--e.
My girlfriend was always gifted at her studies and has more diploma's than can be believed. For all that she will say the most rediculous things. When I get very fed up I build an experiment to show the truth. In fairness to her she does use standard thinking mixed with how she thinks it should be. Yesterday she rejected some almost fresh mincemeat as it had slightly oxidised. She has a diploma in food science. I made her go through what she knew. We settled on she shouldn't buy mince, she even said this problem is always true and she prefered to cook on day on purchase. Then I said . Lamb is always grey and you never say about that, that had never passed her mind. As beef is very cheap maybe they don't put nitrogen in the pack? Maybe they should.
Some science is no more complicated to check. The problem is the experiment needs to be thought out. Phlogiston was a good concept. The man who improved the idea due to love of science and country paid with his life we are told. The man who coined the term Phlogiston was freind of Erasmus Darwin who was saying the same as Charles back in the same period. My favourite school experiment was the candle in a jar that was in water. It was so hard to believe so much water would be drawn in. I knew the concept and could not imagine so much of the oxygen would be used before the flame went out. As my boss says" show me then I will understand , tell me and I might not ".
My girlfriend was always gifted at her studies and has more diploma's than can be believed. For all that she will say the most rediculous things. When I get very fed up I build an experiment to show the truth. In fairness to her she does use standard thinking mixed with how she thinks it should be. Yesterday she rejected some almost fresh mincemeat as it had slightly oxidised. She has a diploma in food science. I made her go through what she knew. We settled on she shouldn't buy mince, she even said this problem is always true and she prefered to cook on day on purchase. Then I said . Lamb is always grey and you never say about that, that had never passed her mind. As beef is very cheap maybe they don't put nitrogen in the pack? Maybe they should.
Some science is no more complicated to check. The problem is the experiment needs to be thought out. Phlogiston was a good concept. The man who improved the idea due to love of science and country paid with his life we are told. The man who coined the term Phlogiston was freind of Erasmus Darwin who was saying the same as Charles back in the same period. My favourite school experiment was the candle in a jar that was in water. It was so hard to believe so much water would be drawn in. I knew the concept and could not imagine so much of the oxygen would be used before the flame went out. As my boss says" show me then I will understand , tell me and I might not ".
Perhaps someone would like to read about my hero of the period. I like everything I read about him. Someone I would have loved to meet if we could get on. Don't be put off by the spaceship earth bit. That one didn't take. Here is another.
Joseph Priestley - Wikipedia
My German friend says " That's typical, you English always refer to the inventor rather than the principle (Gosh, do we? Cockroft-Walton I think the last time )". You know it's very wrong not to try to find the inventor. I read not so long ago Bell did not invent the telephone although most likely he did understand the whole concept better than others. If that is right it should be corrected.
Joseph Priestley - Wikipedia
My German friend says " That's typical, you English always refer to the inventor rather than the principle (Gosh, do we? Cockroft-Walton I think the last time )". You know it's very wrong not to try to find the inventor. I read not so long ago Bell did not invent the telephone although most likely he did understand the whole concept better than others. If that is right it should be corrected.
Last edited:
Coincidentally, I was thinking about this over coffee this morning. Bell did invent the telephone, but so did - famously - Elisha Gray. Bell made it to the patent office first.
. Gray did OK, he founded a huge electrical supply company called Graybar, which is still very much alive.Thomas Edison gets credited in the U.S. with many modern inventions, like the light bulb, motion pictures and the phonograph. He did, sort of, invent them but so did other people at the same time. Edison and Bell usually get the credit, and will be remembered for centuries. So will men like Salk, Fulton, Bessemer, Whitney, Berners-Lee and so on. But what if they had not invented what they did? Would it have remained UN-invented? No, not at all. They were ideas and technologies who's time had come. Someone else would have invented them, and usually without much delay. That's the principle. Your Germain friend is correct.
Realy, Jan, you are speaking of evolution of an egg, like you have been there...or you are learned to belive that is a true? I'm not a religious person, but that ego thing is very annoying. Do you think that there are no experts in biology, dna, etc. aware that evolution theory is not possible, but they keep it silent for not lusing a job??
If anyone think that everything we learnt in scool is a true, he is a true monkey!
It's VERY FUNNY to see here in audio threads, there is a large group of people that are beliving in mesurements only, but when it comes to evolution, or other things, they belive it all without a grain of doubt. It would be fun to see how did they measured, that something happened milions or billion years ago.
Indoctrination of a human being it's a very interisting subject...
Well, the problem I have with that (aside from the fact that you do exactly the thing you blame me for) is that evolution can be observed in the real world, both in nature, and in the lab.
So I don't know how to parse 'evolution theory is not possible', when I see it happen. So evolution is not a theory, anymore than gravity is a theory.
What IS a theory is how evolution (and gravity) can happen, what is the cause or driving factor.
For evolution, one theory is natural selection, and throughout the decades observations have again and again confirmed and strengthened the theory as the most likely cause of evolution by far. I don't know of any other competing theory of evolution that is taken serious. Of course, Intelligent Design is not a theory of evolution.
Jan
Last edited:
Actually, mesasurements are not a goal in themselves, they are a means to obtain proof or observation. As such, they indicate that the person doing it is very critical and has learned to mistrust what he thinks he sees or hears, and rely on objective evidence.
And that is exactly what the theory of evolution is based on: evidence, collected bit by bit over many, many years, slowly putting the puzzle together. As I said above, evolution is a fact that can be observed. But if you have a better theory to explain those facts, I am sure the world would like to hear about it!
On the other hand if you are interested in learning how they 'measured' how evolution happened, there are probably many thousands of books about it, from academic to laymen level. Actually, it is not very nice to criticise those that did their share of study while you yourself apparently have not done anything to understand it.
Yes it is.
Jan
Last edited:
Don't forget Crapper.
It would make an interesting study to determine one or two very important inventions that would have had a considerable delay. I doubt the bipolar transistor would qualify or the op-amp. Who, of course, didn't invent the crapper. But you knew that.Don't forget Crapper.
Who, of course, didn't invent the crapper. But you knew that.
It was a Chinese guy named Loo wasn't it?
In your first sentence it`s a theory, but in second is a fact, that says a lot...
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
That's all? I spend 20 minutes to try to explain things to you and all you take home is this?
Man, you've got a looong way to go!
Jan
Here you go again wlth your ego thing again...I dont waste my time with that kind of people.
You are an expert in so many things, I wish I could be smart as you, your remote ancestors would be proud of you
Evolution and common descent are not controversial in academic circles. Whatever doubt surrounding these scientific theories has been eliminated by modern genomic sequencing.
It's the same technology used in paternity tests. A technician could sequence any two random genomes and tell how many generations back any two people are related. They can determine whether the relationship is maternal or paternal. And just because we can't find any record of this person in archives doesn't mean that they don't exist. How many people know who their paternal grandfather 8 generations removed is? But do you deny he existed?
Same technology tells us that all life is related. There's no more maybe; we can sequence creatures alive today and confirm that.
It's the same technology used in paternity tests. A technician could sequence any two random genomes and tell how many generations back any two people are related. They can determine whether the relationship is maternal or paternal. And just because we can't find any record of this person in archives doesn't mean that they don't exist. How many people know who their paternal grandfather 8 generations removed is? But do you deny he existed?
Same technology tells us that all life is related. There's no more maybe; we can sequence creatures alive today and confirm that.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.