I_Forgot said:
panomaniac said:
I ws cringing every time I thought of what the results might be if I looked in this thread. How nasty folks might get, and do...feeling some sort of internal threat to their worldview.
I didn't come back for a while due to er, sometimes..er, people display a ridiculous amount of emotionally derived vitrol, upon which they like to slam their own personal world view, or interpretations of 'reality' upon others. I pefer to say, ok, here's a possbile viewpoint, and to say of anothers..that..um...'that's interesting'..and nod along, smiling, as they merrily espouse their preferred index of existence, uhm, in a overtly verbose manner. No problem. Or at least I try, but like others, at times, I fall prey to my own insecurity of what my self positioning and understandings are, and how all that is wrapped up in what and who I am, specifically emotions (which run the show as everything has to pass through them-being aware of that is the first step)....and things can get a bit heated.
As for the video, like I said, what is in it, is like, oh, maybe a few letters of an alphabet, compared to the whole alphabet and the entire symphony of existence that can be written from it.
I very much suspect that this particular aspect of the direction science may be going in, in the near and immediate future, is definitely pointed at within the scope of subjects that the video presents. Merely presents, mind you, and does not even remotely cover.
To say the least, it is a complex subject, and to begin to get a grasp of what he is speaking of, would take more than a bit of reading and dedication.
Personally, I find the subject fascinating, no matter where it may lead.
I reason this one out, right now, on the personal level, the way I always do. This, in consideration of how much I have researched this subject. And no matter what you may believe, I consider myself as having quite decent powers of discernment, and am fully capable of making intelligent decisions in points of deductive reasoning. I learned (genesis of) such at quite a tender age. A long story. I remember my own birth. I remember my first step. I remember the moment I first understood the concept of 'I'. (You may be able to as well. You just have to want it bad enough to figure out how to get there) But back to the point.
I imagine the almighty (pick one) slamming a gun up against my temple, pulling the hammer back on the gun (click!),and saying to me, "Only one of these things is true. Is this monatomic stuff bull, or is it real? If you choose wrongly..I pull the trigger. Choose wisely."
At this point I my investigations, a year deep now, researching it almost every single day....At this point -not too firmly- but with the eye on death as the result of a wrong choice....I fall on the side of it being true. Not a resounding scream from the roof tops, but a grudging yes. Maybe that scream from the rooftops, in the future. Who knows. I might change my mind. But right now, it's yes.
There is alot I'm not telling you, yes, definitely that, for sure. Stuff that most folk on this board have no freaking clue about. No understanding of at all. A completely different world. And we don't talk about that, with materialists. For it gives them the fits. In the same way that some forms of 'fundamentalism' give others grief. Ignorance leading blind violence - and all that. For they literally, phsychologically, will not -and cannot-understand. Thus, the actual and real danger they present to others. Forced to humor them. Like sitting there and nervously laughing at Caligula's jokes, round the dinner table. Wouldn't want to end up looking like the scenery. Ha-ha. (Caligula had people butchered and killed-as dinner entertainment-and their bodies adorned the scenery)
So, in essence, all I can do, is show you a possibility, and you have to take it from there - or not. But at the least, as in any endeavor involving a discourse over the idea of information transference; all I can do, is show you the opportunity to relieve your own ignorance. Anything more, and it's like trying to herd cats, or push mules around. Impossible, and sometimes deadly.
This is the way it has always been done. And when you understand, all of this will not be needed, nor matter. And it will make you laugh.
In it's own way, it is exactly like the idea of the masses of the people possessing the larger ignorance, compared to the few, and through that ignorance, damaging, and even destroying or killing the few. Like 650,000 dead (and counting) right now, in another country - an example of how ignorance kills. And how the brutal, who control that ignorance, can direct it, and thus, that result.
In this particular area, intellectual intelligence is no guarantor of understanding. It is a different sort of intelligence, that I speak of.
[http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/May2003/1054230570.Ph.r.html
http://itotd.com/articles/477/edible-gold/
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n1_v22/ai_20577447/pg_1
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n1_v22/ai_20577447/pg_3
K.R. Brower,Jan-Feb, 1998,Skeptical Inquirer
some counter intelligence.
as to Mr Gardner - a man who takes Jesus existence as a proven fact and accordingly tries to trace his alien ancestry:
http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id6.html
there is a lot more about MR. Gardner out there,so - google yourself if intersted.
how serious - in the light of Bertrand Russels quote, can you take somebody who bases his claims on the existence completely fictitious alien visitors?
http://itotd.com/articles/477/edible-gold/
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n1_v22/ai_20577447/pg_1
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n1_v22/ai_20577447/pg_3
K.R. Brower,Jan-Feb, 1998,Skeptical Inquirer
some counter intelligence.
as to Mr Gardner - a man who takes Jesus existence as a proven fact and accordingly tries to trace his alien ancestry:
http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id6.html
there is a lot more about MR. Gardner out there,so - google yourself if intersted.
how serious - in the light of Bertrand Russels quote, can you take somebody who bases his claims on the existence completely fictitious alien visitors?
Well KBK, I for one always look forward to reading your posts. Sure, there's some "out-there" wackyness in them, but there is also a great deal of food for thought.
I think that in a thread of this sort the nay-sayers need not apply. We don't see single ended triode facists peeing all over the gainclone clan's campfire, now do we?
Max
I think that in a thread of this sort the nay-sayers need not apply. We don't see single ended triode facists peeing all over the gainclone clan's campfire, now do we?
Max
pinkmouse said:
Oh man, that's one of my favorites!
You've gotta admit, the whole situation has it's humour.
I wonder how Darwin fairs.
History is rife with such incriminations. Usually on the cusp of change. Who utters them for what reasons, and what are their fundamental aspects in truth, are always among the major considerations that need to be assessed.
Audio-Kraut: I've read everything that Laurence Gardner has published, and I can't recall him attempting to prove that some guy (and like Zaphod, just a guy) posessing a modicum of reasonable intelligence tied to empathy- was of alien ancestry. it's not like I'd forget such a claim either.
As I take a look at the last website proffered, it's like looking at a letter of the alphabet and not even considering the others-or what can be created from them.. Both the references are missing-so balance is lost. . ..should I simply quote my entire last post? Ha-ha? Or did I just do so?
First article:Hyperbola based on zero investigation of factual considerations based on claims.
Second article:Hyperbola based on zero investigation of factual considerations based on claims.
Third article:Hyperbola based on zero investgation of factual considerations based on claims.
Fourth article:Hyperbola based on zero investigation of factual considerations based on claims.
At least - Darwin works beautifully - just try agriculture. Applied darwinism, man just replaces natural selection. Same thing.
Sure I quoted those articles - should have read the byline - counter intelligence.
Just because someone is an outsider to science doesn't give him automatic credibility - at least not in my book. I also doesn 't disqualify him automatically. I just ask - where's the beef? (I guess my agrological training must be showing).
Sure I quoted those articles - should have read the byline - counter intelligence.
Just because someone is an outsider to science doesn't give him automatic credibility - at least not in my book. I also doesn 't disqualify him automatically. I just ask - where's the beef? (I guess my agrological training must be showing).
about monatomic states - in metal and otherwise:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...doc+monoatomic+state&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6
usefulness in photography:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3503555
not only transition elements can exist in monatomic state:
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/28347/page/3;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0
Nothing about properties that would make me eat the stuff...gold or anything else...at least the postings were inspiring to do some reading, just not about likely misinterpreation of spectroscopic data.
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/hudson/
Is from supporters of Mr. Hudson - the claimed "discoverer" of the natural occuring monatomic state.
I take exception to statements like this:
Where is the proof?
There is still too much controversy to claim the existence of this matter as even a theory. Sloppy use of hypothesis?
again - as if string theory might not just be the just too neat to explain everything - as in the theory of everything. There simply is too much doubt to as yet take it more than just a nice hyothesis. There is no falsifiable evidence for it, afaik nobody has even a model how to test for any of its aspects.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...doc+monoatomic+state&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6
usefulness in photography:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3503555
not only transition elements can exist in monatomic state:
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/28347/page/3;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0
Nothing about properties that would make me eat the stuff...gold or anything else...at least the postings were inspiring to do some reading, just not about likely misinterpreation of spectroscopic data.
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/hudson/
Is from supporters of Mr. Hudson - the claimed "discoverer" of the natural occuring monatomic state.
I take exception to statements like this:
Where is the proof?
There is still too much controversy to claim the existence of this matter as even a theory. Sloppy use of hypothesis?
again - as if string theory might not just be the just too neat to explain everything - as in the theory of everything. There simply is too much doubt to as yet take it more than just a nice hyothesis. There is no falsifiable evidence for it, afaik nobody has even a model how to test for any of its aspects.
KBK said:
And did you find that? I didn't see it, but my viewpoint is different.
Most of us just shake our heads and giggle, or moan. Then for some reason there was the debate about religion and science - I don't understand why that came up.
My point is this:
With all the amazing properties this monatomic stuff has, and Mr. Gardener seems to have some in a jar, why go on the lecture circuit in front of bored college kids? Why not use it for incredible good, or gain, or evil or something for crying out loud. Why just lecture and write books about it?
Modern business is very quick to exploit ANY advantage it might have, real or imagined. I just can't see something as valuable as this remaining under wraps - even if it does "Challenge or World View." Just doesn't make sense. Same for the free energy stuff. Why not put it to good use? - now!
Reality is the way things are whether one is there to note it or not. Perception is what became of reality once it got inside one’s head. They are not the same thing and should never be confused. This is the basis of the distortion that characterizes all pseudo-science and all but the one true religion (we know who we are.) Further, the weaker ones grasp of reality and ones awareness of self, the more that reality will likely differ from ones perceptions. Somewhat like the wacky wooden blocks that are supposed to make your hi-fi sound better (Art Dudley in Stereophile) or strapping on a bomb to claim the promised 72 virgins.
If someone disagrees with an opinion, particularly yours, how can you possibly take that to mean that people are “display[ing] a ridiculous amount of emotionally derived vitrol” [sic]. A rational and intelligent argument (logic) is dispassionate. If you take offence, perhaps that has something to do with your state of mind.
Never use a straw man when you are trying to make a point. This is an invalid argument. Science is not religion. Science is not dogma. Science is a very strict process for discovering reality. Science is from the Latin for “knowledge”. Most of what the rational among us think is true, is because the scientific process suggests that these things are true. There are practitioners of science who may not do science very well, just as there are arguers who do not argue very well. This does not invalidate science. All of the modern conveniences that we all enjoy, such as hi-fi, are because science works better than any other process. Pop culture or television science fiction is no place to get an education in science. It is after all science FICTION not science FACT.
There is a concept among investigators of intelligence that distinguishes between power and performance. An example of performance is the speed at which an individual can perform simple arithmetic. An example of power is the ability of an individual to understand or analyze a difficult concept. If an individual lacks this “power” then an infinite amount of time devoted to the subject is still not going to lead to understanding. An individual may believe that he understands gravity because an apple fell from Newton’s tree. But if he has no understanding of Gaussian Curvature or Reimannian tensors, he cannot possibly know General Relativity and therefore, at best, he can only have a pseudo-understanding of Gravity. He may believe that he understands, but he truly does not. Further, he may be incapable of recognizing his ignorance. Pseudo-understanding can lead to quite elaborate belief systems: Perhaps not to the point of a clinical diagnosis, but still maladaptive. How does one recognize that a behaviour may be problematic? - When that behaviour causes repeated and frequent emotional disagreements with those around you (who have nothing personal against you.)
If someone disagrees with an opinion, particularly yours, how can you possibly take that to mean that people are “display[ing] a ridiculous amount of emotionally derived vitrol” [sic]. A rational and intelligent argument (logic) is dispassionate. If you take offence, perhaps that has something to do with your state of mind.
Never use a straw man when you are trying to make a point. This is an invalid argument. Science is not religion. Science is not dogma. Science is a very strict process for discovering reality. Science is from the Latin for “knowledge”. Most of what the rational among us think is true, is because the scientific process suggests that these things are true. There are practitioners of science who may not do science very well, just as there are arguers who do not argue very well. This does not invalidate science. All of the modern conveniences that we all enjoy, such as hi-fi, are because science works better than any other process. Pop culture or television science fiction is no place to get an education in science. It is after all science FICTION not science FACT.
There is a concept among investigators of intelligence that distinguishes between power and performance. An example of performance is the speed at which an individual can perform simple arithmetic. An example of power is the ability of an individual to understand or analyze a difficult concept. If an individual lacks this “power” then an infinite amount of time devoted to the subject is still not going to lead to understanding. An individual may believe that he understands gravity because an apple fell from Newton’s tree. But if he has no understanding of Gaussian Curvature or Reimannian tensors, he cannot possibly know General Relativity and therefore, at best, he can only have a pseudo-understanding of Gravity. He may believe that he understands, but he truly does not. Further, he may be incapable of recognizing his ignorance. Pseudo-understanding can lead to quite elaborate belief systems: Perhaps not to the point of a clinical diagnosis, but still maladaptive. How does one recognize that a behaviour may be problematic? - When that behaviour causes repeated and frequent emotional disagreements with those around you (who have nothing personal against you.)
simple answer by those propagating it - the oil and other energy deliverers supress it. Nice and simple conspiracy theory..ahh, hypothesis.
Otherwise - we all would drive on tires lasting 500k km+, run vehicles on gasoline at 500 mpg..etc. etc....
panomaniac said:
The question is stil free energy. Religion and science, to me, as a debate-didn't enter the picture. Questions have a habit of being all encompassing, if they are to have a positive, directly known and quantifiable consideration for the human psyche to evolve through. Thus becoming quantifiable results in the sciences. The two are inseperable. vise-versa.
I find hundreds of anomalous points in science, which few seem to pay attention to, to the tune of hundreds of them. Hundreds upon hundreds, if one cares to listen. They all tend to sing the same tune, if you bother to track them down and put them into a single spot - and analyse.
Sometime many in a given day. for example, not a few minutes ago, I was watching a presentation of the results of the Hubble looking at a spot in space off from the moon, for a period of 4 months. 10,000+ galaxies where found in the one still. It was also noted, that one galaxy was so massive, it violated the known laws of physics. I'll say that again.
Violates the known laws of physics.
Now. one single fact out of Hundreds and hundreds, of the exact same nature.
And that was what, 3 lousy minutes of searching something else, and stumbing across anomalous components in known reality? Come on..if a given person cannot find severe flaws in the current model of what is what, then they really aren't looking too damn hard.
There's so many contradictory components of reality existent in truth, that we are literally choking on them, and only those in denial, can deny the existence of such! Duh!!!
Like the hundreds upon hundreds of facts that I've come across that voilate the known models, it was merely...one more nail in the coffin of deniability of the fact that phsyics, and science is a rolling, everchanging, evolving phenomena. Textbooks are shite. old news. Science, as a cutting edge, the moment of human evolution itself, can be and is sometimes reflected in the anomalous reports from the fringes.
As for the textbooks--Like Raul Julia says, ripping off the rear view mirror on his 180 mph convertible Ferarri, in the 'Gumball rally', "What'sa behind me....does not matter..."
you are cordially invited to try this right now in fort st. john - or you should have been here two weeks ago - at -38.
I repeat for the last time that I never said that science was a religion. I said that it was a model which shared many characteristics with religion. It was others who made the leap and then proceded to repeat it over and over.
The only example of vitriol I have encountered in this thread were from "I-Forget" and "SY". I don't believe that a careful reading of what I said will lead to a discovery of vitriol on my part or anyone who has argued for a more "open minded" approach.
I firmly believe that that science is a very superior model of the universe, and yet it is nothing more than an approximation to the real state in the universe. I also believe that science is far from "pure" in its execution at the moment and therefore it is flawed. It comes with a whole lot of baggage about what it is acceptable to investigate - which presents a limit to what it can explain. Almost all areas of knowledge can offer up their truth if the "scientific method" is impartially applied.
Tenure just about sums it up perfectly.
I do not necessarily believe in any of the whacko ideas which have been described in this thread - but I have an open mind.
Emotion has played far to big a part in the development of science, and this thread.
Just as I posted this I read KBK's contibution - and again he has said what I feel in a far more eloquent way than I can attempt. Thanks.
Shoog
The only example of vitriol I have encountered in this thread were from "I-Forget" and "SY". I don't believe that a careful reading of what I said will lead to a discovery of vitriol on my part or anyone who has argued for a more "open minded" approach.
I firmly believe that that science is a very superior model of the universe, and yet it is nothing more than an approximation to the real state in the universe. I also believe that science is far from "pure" in its execution at the moment and therefore it is flawed. It comes with a whole lot of baggage about what it is acceptable to investigate - which presents a limit to what it can explain. Almost all areas of knowledge can offer up their truth if the "scientific method" is impartially applied.
Tenure just about sums it up perfectly.
I do not necessarily believe in any of the whacko ideas which have been described in this thread - but I have an open mind.
Emotion has played far to big a part in the development of science, and this thread.
Just as I posted this I read KBK's contibution - and again he has said what I feel in a far more eloquent way than I can attempt. Thanks.
Shoog
I love conspiracy theories. No, really, I do. It may be Aum Shinriko creating new types of atomic weapon in the outback of Australia, MI5 conspiring with the Prince of Wales to murder Diana, The protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the covering up of alien landings in Central America. Fascinating, wonderful, stuff.
But, the conspiracy theory that "Big Oil" is covering up free energy is not one of the most plausible. I stated one reason earlier in the thread, the fact that there are countries that are not oil producers that are not under the thrall of Western oil companies that desperately need new energy sources.
Let me now point out another flaw. Have you considered how large the department running this cover up would have to be?
The latest figures I can find show that 16900 scientific journals are published worldwide, (Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory, R. R. Bowker, New Providence, NJ 2002), in every language you can think of. Imagine the size of the research department required to watch all those journals, let alone all the web based publications or Patent applications. How many trained physicists/chemists/engineers, (of course, speaking three or four languages each), would be required to monitor all of them? People who wouldn't be cheap to employ, so would be a huge non-productive cost to an enterprise. Where would that budget be hidden? Why has no scientist ever blown the whistle? With so many employed, one would sooner or later for whatever reason, they certainly have in the case of tobacco, drugs or nuclear power companies, businesses of similar scale.
Now I hear the objection- Oil companies are a cartel and they would share the work to make it easier for all, a smaller department considering say, only 10000 journals would be quite simple to hide in a budget of billions. True. But then we get back to human nature. If this was so important, would the oil companies trust each other? I very much doubt it. All it takes is one company to get a free energy process running, and all the others are bust. Would you trust your competitors? Really?
But, the conspiracy theory that "Big Oil" is covering up free energy is not one of the most plausible. I stated one reason earlier in the thread, the fact that there are countries that are not oil producers that are not under the thrall of Western oil companies that desperately need new energy sources.
Let me now point out another flaw. Have you considered how large the department running this cover up would have to be?
The latest figures I can find show that 16900 scientific journals are published worldwide, (Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory, R. R. Bowker, New Providence, NJ 2002), in every language you can think of. Imagine the size of the research department required to watch all those journals, let alone all the web based publications or Patent applications. How many trained physicists/chemists/engineers, (of course, speaking three or four languages each), would be required to monitor all of them? People who wouldn't be cheap to employ, so would be a huge non-productive cost to an enterprise. Where would that budget be hidden? Why has no scientist ever blown the whistle? With so many employed, one would sooner or later for whatever reason, they certainly have in the case of tobacco, drugs or nuclear power companies, businesses of similar scale.
Now I hear the objection- Oil companies are a cartel and they would share the work to make it easier for all, a smaller department considering say, only 10000 journals would be quite simple to hide in a budget of billions. True. But then we get back to human nature. If this was so important, would the oil companies trust each other? I very much doubt it. All it takes is one company to get a free energy process running, and all the others are bust. Would you trust your competitors? Really?
Pink Mouse I take your point and it persuades me greatly. I might even drop that paranoid delusion.
There are a few hints to the contrary.
When more efficient engines were developed in the 70's they weren't adopted, quite the contrary. So how was the competitive advantage mechanism working there ?
Research is funded by both Governments and companies. The sort of funding required to undertake serious research is enormous. The number of people who have access to that amount of funding is tiny and restricted to governments with oil funded economies. The controls on funding research are very tight. No South Pacific Island using nut oil as a diesel alternative could fund that type of research.
A large proportion of practical scientific research is funded by the military - a tightly controlled area. Look at the control that is still exercised over the use of Nuclear energy after half a century.
There is also the possability that a large company could hold back such a discovery until maximum competitive advantage can be gleaned, ie when petro-chemicals become scarce. Large successful companies think long term.
Certainly not conclusive arguments against your position, but they do temper my certainty that you are right.
Shoog
There are a few hints to the contrary.
When more efficient engines were developed in the 70's they weren't adopted, quite the contrary. So how was the competitive advantage mechanism working there ?
Research is funded by both Governments and companies. The sort of funding required to undertake serious research is enormous. The number of people who have access to that amount of funding is tiny and restricted to governments with oil funded economies. The controls on funding research are very tight. No South Pacific Island using nut oil as a diesel alternative could fund that type of research.
A large proportion of practical scientific research is funded by the military - a tightly controlled area. Look at the control that is still exercised over the use of Nuclear energy after half a century.
There is also the possability that a large company could hold back such a discovery until maximum competitive advantage can be gleaned, ie when petro-chemicals become scarce. Large successful companies think long term.
Certainly not conclusive arguments against your position, but they do temper my certainty that you are right.
Shoog
Shoog said:
At that point, the US still had a huge car industry, and retooling costs would have been horrendous. Bear in mind that the basic engine blocks in use then, (and in some cases now), were designed in the 50's. Prices were already inflated due to the oil crisis, and it just wouldn't be economically feasable to retool entire production lines for what was a relatively short term price hike by the oil producing cartel, let alone persuade customers to pay for the new technology, ( they were feeling the effects of the recession as well). Then, there was also no overwhelming philosophical awareness of the enviroment of the kind that is on the rise now
True, but who knows where the initial seed might come from? To get really esoteric, perhaps a new bacteria could be found or engineered that would split huge quantities of hydrogen and oxygen, or psychologists might come up with a treatment for the mass psychosis of consumerism?
Of course they could, and probably would, but again the scale of the conspiracy would be huge and the slightest leak would blow the whole thing wide open. Look at the Glomar Explorer case for an example. One of the most top secret projects ever undertaken by the CIA, yet it was headlining the papers only a few years later!
KBK said:
Pure nonsense. An example: at 48:13 he claims that the anti-gravity powder is actually how the stones of the pyramids in Egypt were moved and that no other method of levers, etc. has ever worked. An outright lie. Who has performed this test and why didn't it make CNN? I am sure CNN and every other news organization in the world would cover a story about levitating stones. I have seen numerous documentaries on the discovery channel showing a number of ways in which the stones could have been moved with the simple technology available at the time.
Who at NASA is saying that we can easily move things between different dimensions by setting up resonances (54:30)?
At about 56:00 the speaker claims an article in SA talks about the conductivity of DNA tagged with ruthenium being higher than was expected. In the next sentence he says "Its our monatomic gold wires..." ... then he babbles something about an "integrated circuit of light within the body" as if the scientists who wrote the SA article were in agreement or actually made the discoveries he is claiming. This is laughable.
At about 1:13:30 he claims that aerogel weighs nothing. This is completely incorrect. He claims it is impervious to heat - i.e. it does not conduct heat and he shows a pictures of crayons lying unmelted on a block of aerogel in a flame as proof. Aerogel does conduct heat, but very slowly. Come back to those crayons a little while later and they will be melted. Finally he claims that the aerogel is 98% air and some secret material, and we are supposed to think it must be this monatomic gold. Here is what aerogel actually is: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-aerogel.htm
The final insult to anyone's intelligence comes at 1:17 when he starts talking about the "arc of the covenant". It is as if this man swapped his shirt and pants and what we see as his mouth is actually his anus, for what it spews is pure excrement!
I don't understand how anyone with any critical thinking skills can watch this garbage and think any of it has any value. He weaves actual science in with this fantasy stuff in order to make the fantasy stuff seem real.
If the powder in the bottle was what he claims it is, and if it could do what he claims it does, he could throw away the entire presentation and simply provide a demonstration. But there the magic powder sits...
A complete waste of time. I want my 1:21 back. maybe some of that powder can get it back for me...
I_F
Vitriol? Where?
To be fair, let's consider the Correspondence Principle. One doesn't need to understand differential geometry to very closely calculate the trajectory of a thrown object, the path of planets, the impact of a golf ball, or any of the other 99.9% of phenomena that we observe. Now, that 0.1% is darn interesting and very important for cosmology and GPS, but understanding the Newtonian conception of gravity is still something better than "pseudo." It's extremely useful, just as understanding Maxwell's equations is extremely useful, despite QED's wider scope.
Actually, they were. This is when Nissan, Honda, and Toyota established a foothold in the US, eventually to displace GM/Ford/Chrysler as our most popular cars.
To be fair, let's consider the Correspondence Principle. One doesn't need to understand differential geometry to very closely calculate the trajectory of a thrown object, the path of planets, the impact of a golf ball, or any of the other 99.9% of phenomena that we observe. Now, that 0.1% is darn interesting and very important for cosmology and GPS, but understanding the Newtonian conception of gravity is still something better than "pseudo." It's extremely useful, just as understanding Maxwell's equations is extremely useful, despite QED's wider scope.
Actually, they were. This is when Nissan, Honda, and Toyota established a foothold in the US, eventually to displace GM/Ford/Chrysler as our most popular cars.
I had an interesting idea about conspiracies theories.
A conspiracy by its very nature confires a competitive advantage. Therefore by the process of evolution it would be illogical to suppose that conspiracies didn't exit. Of course the nature and extent of those conspiracies is the "devil in the detail".
Tricky thing this logic - I personally don't trust it. I remembers a textbook use of logic which proved there was life on the moon.
Shoog
A conspiracy by its very nature confires a competitive advantage. Therefore by the process of evolution it would be illogical to suppose that conspiracies didn't exit. Of course the nature and extent of those conspiracies is the "devil in the detail".
Tricky thing this logic - I personally don't trust it. I remembers a textbook use of logic which proved there was life on the moon.
Shoog
- Status
- Not open for further replies.