Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Daniel Mandic on 26 Oct 2006 15:48 T Wake wrote: > The demonisation process claws at straws and brings in WWII as an > example of "why action needs to be taken against terrorism" neatly > ignoring the inaccuracy of the match and the ease in which a > countermatch can be made. aha :9, you mean, like, never that 'Holocaust' again. ? :) I never thought to that line of thinking, indeed. You think they feel guilty? The American, who waited till 1945 to release the ppl with jewish Religion from the Nazi-Terror?? Kind regards, Daniel Mandic
From: lemonjuice on 26 Oct 2006 16:13 On Thu, 26 Oct 06 12:39:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <iLOdnYf2fLhzz6LYRVnyuw(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehndut$8qk_001(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <5bmdnTiQpMD62KPYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ehl0hs$8qk_001(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <xeidnaGqVPjT7abYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:ehfm39$8qk_006(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>>> snipped >> >>We [tinw] believe that Newtonian gravity is the best description of what >>happens. Your lab experiment is limited by your equipment and your >>understanding of what you are observing. >> >>A new theory which matches the previous predictions and makes new >>(sucessfully) testable ones will overhaul the old one. Until that happens we >>[tinw] believe that the current theory is the *best*. >> >>That is how science works. > >I know. What you seem to omit is that the old method will still >continue to work within the range of the old measurements. > >I get real annoyed when people say that Newtonian physics doesnt' >work. It does work with crude measurements of certain things. >I know what the scientists mean; but it's a bad form to use >because the cranks and the newbies do not know what they mean. ><snip> > >/BAH Newtonian mechanics though inaccurate is understandable to most though for modern day engineering purposes it is unreliable/inapplicable but how many people/engineers are able to get an idea of what General relativity really is about? lemonjuice
From: John Fields on 26 Oct 2006 16:27 On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:19:20 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote: >> >> >T Wake wrote: >> > >> >> Nazi Germany was a nation with a powerful miliary machine and >> >> advanced technology. >> > >> >You make it too easy :) hehe.... no no, not so. >> > >> >Germany was, and is a powerful technic developing nation. >> >Baden-W?rtemberg (Capital Stuttgart) for example (BOSCH, Mercedes >> >Benz..). >> >> --- >> Have you learned how to goose-step yet? > >When does it become compulsory for the US Army ? --- When do _you_ think, pinhead? >Incidentally, I heard today the Daimler-Chrysler a.k.a Mercedes is >thinking of getting rid of Chrysler ( for non-performance ) ! --- That's their problem. They should never have bought them in the first place. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 26 Oct 2006 16:29 On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:27:06 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >MooseFET wrote: > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > Do you have any evidence that human societies were a herd-style >> > where only one male was allowed to remain in the pack? >> >> It is not needed. Take a look at many of the apes or wolves. Only the >> high status members get to breed. In wolves it applies to both sexes. >> In apes it is mostly males. The bonobo is very much an exception to >> this. > >The bonobos are apparently our closest cousins. --- More like brothers and sisters to you, I'd say. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: lucasea on 26 Oct 2006 17:13
<mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:Dg80h.5$e06.363(a)news.uchicago.edu... > In article <ehqa97$8qk_008(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >>I get real annoyed when people say that Newtonian physics doesnt' >>work. It does work with crude measurements of certain things. > > Crude? For nearly all macroscopic situations we encounter Newtonian > physics is good to 7-8 decimal places or better, far more accurate > than the input parameters typically are. Not so crude:-) This is just a demonstration of the depth of her misunderstanding of how exactly GR relates to Newtonian gravity. GR is only needed to describe the situation for things that are very, very, very massive, or moving very, very very fast....and as such, it explains why light bends around stars, when it shouldn't in Newtonian gravity, since weightless photons should be completely unaffected by a star's gravity. One application of relativistic effects that has always fascinated me is in computational studies of very heavy atoms like Hg. As I understand it, incorporation of relativistic effects is needed to understand certain phenomena...like, for example, the low unusually low melting point of Hg compared to related elements, and the stability of Hg(I) compounds. >>I know what the scientists mean; but it's a bad form to use >>because the cranks and the newbies do not know what they mean. > > It is even worse than bad form, under most circumstances it is pompous > twittery. You know, you've the kind of people who enjoy saying "all > you know is wrong, I know better, nah nah nananah...". You would > think they should grow out of this by the end of adolescence but some > people never do. > > Sure, Newtonian physics is not exact. It is an approximation, and a > damn good one over a broad range of physical parameters. Calling it > "wrong" is stupid. And it is something I've never heard any serious scientist do. Eric Lucas |