Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 13 Oct 2006 11:31 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:sblti2dcbmukt539ak9hsm030dolq2u7v9(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:01:45 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >>>> The report is total bullshit >> >>Evidence, please. > > > Those that made it already stated that it was NOT based on hard > numbers. So, you assume your opinion is more sensible? > Can you really be that retarded? Oh... that's right... you have > already proven that you are indeed that retarded. Well done. Keep up the good work.
From: T Wake on 13 Oct 2006 11:33 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:30nti295p83eoe5ghkav7ee1rr4frjl5rf(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:02:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:e0gti2djea63mblscpo3qv2poervfjale9(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:38:06 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>>message >>>>news:72cti2912j48l1b64i0lgonubk0o27hr55(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:18:05 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Simple mental experiments show that m1*m2 works in that form, at >>>>>>> least >>>>>>> in the non-relativistic case. >>>>>> >>>>>>Hunh??? Tell me about these simple mental experiments. And tell me >>>>>>why >>>>>>m1*m2 is any better than m1^1.00000000038 * m2^0.99999999947. >>>> >>>>Who says it has to be symmetric? These are, after all, just empirical >>>>laws >>>>that explain observed data. Symmetry is an outgrowth of the fact that >>>>those >>>>two exponents are the same--there's nothing fundamental that says that >>>>any >>>>two bodies of the same mass will exert the same pull on each >>>>other...that's >>>>just what the data tell us. What if the data are wrong--what if, to a >>>>higher degree of precision >>>> >>>>Even if I grant symmetry, why is m1*m2 any better than m1^1.0000000038 * >>>>m2^1.0000000038? >>> >>> Hey, we're making progress. Now you accept that the distance between >>> the masses actually matters, and you seem to agree that the force >>> isn't affected by whatever names we assign to the objects. >> >>And you continue to avoid the real question, using any distraction >>possible >>to avoid answering for an untenable position. >> >>Eric Lucas >> > > Not so. I've managed to counter three of your statements, namely that > there's no distance term, that there's no "2" in Newton's equation, > and the clear implication that the M1 and M2 gains could differ (ie, > they're asymmetric.) You have created three strawmen on what were (IIRC) immediately admitted errors and you count this as a success? > Fixing one goof per day ain't bad and ain't a distraction. As our next > step, you could figure out for yourself why the M's aren't > exponentiated. Why should I do all the work? Because this is nothing to do with the line of conversation. You were asserting that Ockhams Razor had no place in science. Arguing the toss over an example is simply a distraction because you were wrong.
From: T Wake on 13 Oct 2006 11:34 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:c6mti29lsdojtkhhkdvq5sf5vjfbklcuh8(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:01:08 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >>I suspect you haven't fully understood the utility of Ockhams Razor > > > I do not suspect... I KNOW Well that confirmed my suspicions. You have no idea about Ockhams Razor but just like to insult. Well done. Does it make the pain in your head go away?
From: T Wake on 13 Oct 2006 11:36 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:ncnti25cifvcpma8q91tb9bmcdvdh6tupo(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:31:04 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> You have your head buried in the sand if you think the WTC was >>> _the_ World Trade Centre. >> >>I'd been wondering about that ! >> > > Especially since it isn't even spelled that way. > > If you converse and use the word, you can use you spelling, > dumbfucks. If you talk about a named item such as a building, you > need to have enough brains to call it by its actual proper moniker, > you stupid twits! Well done. If you read the post you will see the reference to the buildings was abbreviated WTC. The phrase World Trade Centre was a phrase (meaning centre of world trade), and as such, the spelling was correct. Now, you can rant, you can insult, you can froth all you want. But you were wrong.
From: T Wake on 13 Oct 2006 11:40
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egnl9k$8ss_003(a)s933.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <v5udncRbs-7DCbPYRVnyiw(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:egl7bj$8qk_003(a)s837.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <452D8AAB.63CA95F9(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>>> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> > You guys? >>>>> > >>>>> > You'd tremble at the prospect of it unless you had the US to back >>>>> > you up, and you have the temerity to believe that we'd defend you if >>>>> > you were wrong? >>>>> >>>>> Really? Is this an unspported assertion in order that you may score >>>>> some >>>>> points against Eeyore? >>>>> >>>>> I can certainly think of occasions where the UK has _not_ had US back >>>>> up >>>>> in >>>>> military operations. That said, our military is about 1/10th the size >>>>> of >>> the >>>>> US military so expecting the same is a fallacy all on its own. >>>> >>>>The big difference is that the UK actually *wins* the wars we take on ! >>> >>> WWII, WWI, The American Revolutionary War, War of 1812, the nameless >>> one around 1800. >>> >>> Yep, you won all of those. >> >>WWI and WWII were won by the British as much as the Americans or any other >>"single" nation. > > They had a lot of help from the US. The UK government ignored > the warnings of impending messes until it was too late. Oh wow. Did you read my post? Are you replying to it, or one you heard somewhere else? As for ignoring warnings until it was too late, can you remind me _when_ America decided to join the war? >> >>Its interesting that the other "non wins" you mention are from almost 200 >>years ago. We have lost more recent wars as well. We can compare this to >>Vietnam, I suppose. > > Which was a French mess and a continuation of WWII. Not a continuation of WWII at all. It was a continuation of French aspirations for Empire. You can spend eternity passing the buck for the "mess" to other countries. France left and Southern Vietnam would have fell. America didnt want that to happen so joined in. Not a French mess. I suspect you will assert that every mess is "Not An American Mess" simply to justify your world view. >> And if you call WWII a non-win for the UK, America gets >>the pleasure of Korea being a "defeat." >> >>We have however, won some interesting wars - even one that was half a >>world >>away - without American assistance. > > How long ago were those? Not that long ago. When was the last time the US won a war unaided? |