Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 11 Oct 2006 23:47 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:fedri21s4toqia7j4a8o2ejko440n73gp9(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:18:02 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >>>>F = m1^1.0000000032 * m2^0.999999982 * (g-0.000000000016), > > Ah, gravitational force is independent of distance, as Occam's Razor > predicts. That certainly is a useful simplification. Oops, my mistake. Please answer the same questions as if I had typed it right-- Please explain why Newton chose F = m1 * m2 * g / d^2, when F = m1^1.0000000032 * m2^0.999999999982 * (g-0.00000000000016) / d^2.000000000013 would have fit the available data just as well. And if you're going to put it off to Kepler's law, which is the basis for Newton's law, then why did Kepler get something so simple, like Period = k * radius^1.5? Why didn't he say Period = k * radius^1.50000000000038? After all, if needless complexification is the norm in science, then he shouldn't have come up with anything so simple. Or are you being deliberately obtuse to cling to an untenable position? Eric Lucas
From: JoeBloe on 12 Oct 2006 00:01 On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 06:59:15 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >JoeBloe wrote: >> >> >> "America" spans two continents, and several countries are contained >> >> within "America" >> > >> >It's perfectly obvious what he means. >> >> Said the idiot that thinks that placing a foam pad in the bottom of >> an insulated drawer actually reduces the danger or likelihood of an >> ESD event. > >If all the pins are effectively 'shorted together' there is no danger. Do >you think the conductive foam was just for show ? > You prove once again that you are stupid, and in this case, particularly stupid about ESD, and ESD events. The entire device as well as the foam can build a charge that is NOT equipotentiall with ground, so when one goes to use the device, an event occurs. Got clue? Oh, and foam is NOT a highly conductive media, so "all the pins are effectively shorted together" is not true. Not only that, but an event can STILL occur, even on a shorted pin device. All that is required is for one single pn junction to get blown for the whole chip to be a different circuit than it originally was. ESD has a way of finding its own pathways, even between sets of supposedly "shorted pins".
From: John Larkin on 12 Oct 2006 00:02 On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:47:25 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:fedri21s4toqia7j4a8o2ejko440n73gp9(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:18:02 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >>>>>F = m1^1.0000000032 * m2^0.999999982 * (g-0.000000000016), >> >> Ah, gravitational force is independent of distance, as Occam's Razor >> predicts. That certainly is a useful simplification. > >Oops, my mistake. Please answer the same questions as if I had typed it >right-- > >Please explain why Newton chose F = m1 * m2 * g / d^2, when F = >m1^1.0000000032 * m2^0.999999999982 * (g-0.00000000000016) / >d^2.000000000013 would have fit the available data just as well. And if >you're going to put it off to Kepler's law, which is the basis for Newton's >law, then why did Kepler get something so simple, like Period = k * >radius^1.5? Why didn't he say Period = k * radius^1.50000000000038? After >all, if needless complexification is the norm in science, then he shouldn't >have come up with anything so simple. > >Or are you being deliberately obtuse to cling to an untenable position? > >Eric Lucas > Obtuse? I'm not the one who swore there was no "2" in Newton's law of gravitation, as you did in the part you snipped. My answer remains, 2 is fundamentally correct, and Newton did not determine it experimentally. Occam's Razor is folklore. It is unproven, proves nothing, cannot separate good theories from incorrect ones and, if trusted, shuts off thought. In mathematics, only formal proof validates a theorem; in physics, only experiment. Being simple isn't enough. John
From: JoeBloe on 12 Oct 2006 00:18 On Wed, 11 Oct 06 11:20:53 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >This is how N. Korea works. If you don't learn this fact, >you're to make fatal mistakes as Clinton seems to have done. Funny... I was sure that he is still alive.
From: JoeBloe on 12 Oct 2006 00:28
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 07:32:36 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us: >On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:16:58 -0700, JoeBloe ><joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:00:25 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >> >>>No, Ockham's Razor suggests >> >> Totally retarded. > >"Ockham's Razor" is not a law of nature, it's an easy way to avoid >thinking about things that might hurt your head. > >John Thank you. I have always hated dolts that invoke that stupid cop out. |