Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 2 Feb 2007 21:28 MassiveProng wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> > >>>You people sure seem to have to think in absolutes. > >> > >> Like you and your stove. > > > >I would have been superstitious about the stove, except another > >bit god I know can't use his modem when his stove is plugged in. > > > If he is on a modem, he is hardly anything even close to a "bit > god". > > Sheesh. If he also can't fix it he's even less close to being a 'god' too. Graham
From: Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie on 2 Feb 2007 21:58 On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:39:51 +0000, Eeyore wrote: > Tony Lance wrote: > >> Big Bertha Thing spider > > Are you regularly in the habit of posting stuff with no relevance to the thread > ? _EVERYONE_ is in the habit of posting stuff with no relevance in _this_ thread. ;-) Cheers! Rich
From: unsettled on 2 Feb 2007 21:58 Phil Carmody wrote: > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu writes: > >>In article <87bqkdll8y.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >>> >>>>Phil Carmody wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>The US started with no knowledge and built bombs within 3 years. >>>>>>This included all of the infrastructure required. >>>>>>The knowledge has been around for five decades so nobody >>>>>>has to do that work. >>>>> >>>>>It also includes the requirement that you think 6 is 3. >>>>>BAH maths is BAD maths. >>>>>It also presumes that Szil�rd, Teller, Einstein and Oppenheimer, >>>>>had no knowledge before they started working on the projects. >>>> >>>>Why didn't you simply include the entire history of mankind >>>>and start with "Adam" then" >>> >>>Because all of the above had were in America, and had some >>>part >>> >>> >>>>Einstein *never* worked on the bomb project. His input was >>>>limited to sending a letter at Szilard's request. >>> >>>And by doing so he validated the theories underpinning the >>>work. Theories come before practice. >> >>Ahh, so that's why James Watt had to wait for thermodynamics before >>developing his steam engine. > > > That straw man ought to be below someone posting from a .edu address. > If it expands, it will pushes, and if we can trap it so it > can only push in one direction, and we can use part of that > push to cause the mechanism to reset is a _theory_. It does not > require knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics. > > So your straw man is self-quenching - congratulations. > > And, just for reference, you're history is incorrect, it wasn't > Watt. Hmmm, .edu's ain't what they used to be. The only person who developed Watt's engine was, Ta Da! Watt Watt's engine relied on an outboard condenser. Ta Da! Thermodynamics! Your cleverness matches your disposition. Ta Da! Lousy >>>Without that input from >>>him, the research may well not have got underway in 1939. >>> >> >>There was no input from relativity required for this research. > > > Do I mention relativity? If so, where? Come on, cite me - message > id and line. Cite or retract. > > So, are you studying strawmanology at Chicago? You're gonna get > a starred first at this rate. He was a name. His contribution > was his signiture. > > And, I suspect that his knowledge of mass-energy equivalence > might have been one of the reasons why he was considered > to have a something relevant to say. > > >>>>The rest of them, including the important work done by >>>>Wheeler's group at Princeton and Bohr, started with the >>>>Manhattan Project. The problems to be solved were not >>>>whether or not a bomb could work, but actually making it >>>>work, and a contingent trying to figure out whether or not >>>>once started a chain reaction wouldn't extend to the entire >>>>planet. >>> >>>Wrong. The US-based research got underway in 1939. >>> >> >>Only small potatoes research. The real effort started by end of 1941. > > > OK, so does small = zero in uchicago.edu. Jesus, don't ever take up > teaching maths. Or even trying to learn it! You were asked to provide citations. I still don't see any. >>>>>Weird, as Szil�rd was researching the matter at about the same >>>>>time as the Erm�chtigungsgesetz was kicking in (but not publishing >>>>>his work for that very reason). >>>> >>>>Szilard and others were trying to keep up with what the Germans >>>>were doing in their nuclear program. We sent a mission to >>>>destroy Germany's heavy water facility in Norway. >>>> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage >>> >>>Irrelevant. Szil�rd's results were from 1933. That alone >>>counters BAH's absurd claim. >>Szilard's had no results other than "if such and such may be >>happening, then such and such is possible". These are no results at >>all. No results were possible before the possibility of fission has >>benn discovered, and that was in 1939. > No, they're workable theories. As I said, theories before practice. > That's good science. Science is the study of nature. Practice, well that's application, not science at all. And never the twain shall meet. You didn't even get this right.
From: unsettled on 2 Feb 2007 22:01 Phil Carmody wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >>Saddam broke a long tradition which was Arab didn't attack Arab. >>I think this is going to be viewed as a crucial point in world >>history. > > > Which event are you referring to here? Which particular Arabs > did he attack and when? (It's not obvious from the context.) You're expected to come to these discussions with at least a rudimentary knowledge of history.
From: unsettled on 2 Feb 2007 22:04
MassiveProng wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 07 13:22:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > >>Oh, it is possible he made a couple. > > > As if a twit like you would even know. > > >> It is more likely that >>he didn't pay for it. > > > There are many EMPLOYED, PAID engineers out there that perform such > tasks at the behest of their employers. > > Can you really be so dreadfully clueless as to bring up yet another > non-point... AGAIN? You belong to the same union with "sanitation engineers" then? |