Getting better with every episode
OldGringo38
--
OldGringo38
Just West Of Nowhere
Enjoy Life And Live It To Its Fullest
Support Bacteria: They Are The Only Culture Some People Have
chuckcar
news:i9qdq4$124$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69J35X20101020
It's arguably impossible to have the big bang without parallel
universes. After all it's quite difficult to have an explosion without
something to explode *into*. And no, it's *not* in 3 dimensions. The
universe we know *is* the explosion, strange as that sounds. There *is*
no place you can point and say "that's where the big bang occured".
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
Buffalo
I dunno, I had my first big bang many years ago and I still remember
'where'..
Buffalo
Mike Yetto
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69J35X20101020
Just where did you get your Doctorate in Theoretical Physics?
Mike "or did you study cosmetology by mistake?" Yetto
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice they are not.
chuckcar
news:slrn20101021184...@may.eternal-september.org:
No, not by mistake. I paid $400 for the term. You don't need to have a
degree in physics to understand relativity either. Cripes, kids learn it
in high school.
freemont
> It's arguably impossible to have the big bang without parallel
> universes.
Is there anything you don't know?
--
⁂ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
⁂ Beware the 24hoursupport tards:
⁂ http://24hoursupport-tards.info
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
Aardvark
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:36:05 +0000, chuckcar writ:
>
>> It's arguably impossible to have the big bang without parallel
>> universes.
>
> Is there anything you don't know?
You fucking owe me a fucking new fucking monitor, fucking amusing cunt.
--
The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by
the Government of Oceania itself, ’just to keep people frightened’.
This was an idea that had literally never occurred to him.
--- George Orwell, 1984
OldGringo38
following tidbit of information:
OldGringo38
following tidbit of information:
OldGringo38
following tidbit of information:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:36:05 +0000, chuckcar writ:
>
>> It's arguably impossible to have the big bang without parallel
>> universes.
>
> Is there anything you don't know?
OldGringo38
following tidbit of information:
> OldGringo38 wrote on 21-Oct-10 15:11 ...
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69J35X20101020
>
> I'll disagree with the quote. Seems to me that more than a little of it
> -is- the stuff of Science Fiction, or artificial construct intended to
> make some other model look more believable.
Could Be
§ñühw¤£f
expansion of matter at all places at all times:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-227493.html
HTH
--
www.skepticalscience.com|www.youtube.com/officialpeta
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
Jordon
> On 10/21/2010 5:36 PM Just to please that super-ego, chuckcar wrote the
> following tidbit of information:
>> OldGringo38<NoE...@ThisOldHouse.Con> wrote in
>> news:i9qdq4$124$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69J35X20101020
>>
>> It's arguably impossible to have the big bang without parallel
>> universes. After all it's quite difficult to have an explosion without
>> something to explode *into*. And no, it's *not* in 3 dimensions. The
>> universe we know *is* the explosion, strange as that sounds. There *is*
>> no place you can point and say "that's where the big bang occured".
>>
> Remember the Big Bang is still in its theory stage.
So's gravity.
OldGringo38
> OldGringo38 wrote:
>> On 10/21/2010 5:36 PM Just to please that super-ego, chuckcar wrote the
>> following tidbit of information:
>>> OldGringo38<NoE...@ThisOldHouse.Con> wrote in
>>> news:i9qdq4$124$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69J35X20101020
>>>
>>> It's arguably impossible to have the big bang without parallel
>>> universes. After all it's quite difficult to have an explosion without
>>> something to explode *into*. And no, it's *not* in 3 dimensions. The
>>> universe we know *is* the explosion, strange as that sounds. There *is*
>>> no place you can point and say "that's where the big bang occured".
>>>
>> Remember the Big Bang is still in its theory stage.
>
> So's gravity.
Aardvark
It seems to work, though.
Jordon
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:36:00 -0700, Jordon wrote:
>
>> OldGringo38 wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2010 5:36 PM Just to please that super-ego, chuckcar wrote the
>>> following tidbit of information:
>>>> OldGringo38<NoE...@ThisOldHouse.Con> wrote in
>>>> news:i9qdq4$124$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69J35X20101020
>>>>
>>>> It's arguably impossible to have the big bang without parallel
>>>> universes. After all it's quite difficult to have an explosion without
>>>> something to explode *into*. And no, it's *not* in 3 dimensions. The
>>>> universe we know *is* the explosion, strange as that sounds. There
>>>> *is* no place you can point and say "that's where the big bang
>>>> occured".
>>>>
>>> Remember the Big Bang is still in its theory stage.
>>
>> So's gravity.
>
> It seems to work, though.
As a motorcycle rider, I know that quite well.
chuckcar
news:i9qogm$2mv$3...@news.eternal-september.org:
> On 10/21/2010 5:36 PM Just to please that super-ego, chuckcar wrote
> the following tidbit of information:
>> OldGringo38<NoE...@ThisOldHouse.Con> wrote in
>> news:i9qdq4$124$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69J35X20101020
>>
>> It's arguably impossible to have the big bang without parallel
>> universes. After all it's quite difficult to have an explosion
>> without something to explode *into*. And no, it's *not* in 3
>> dimensions. The universe we know *is* the explosion, strange as that
>> sounds. There *is* no place you can point and say "that's where the
>> big bang occured".
>>
> Remember the Big Bang is still in its theory stage.
>
No, physical evidence backs it up. That makes it a law.
OldGringo38
> OldGringo38<NoE...@ThisOldHouse.Con> wrote in
> news:i9qogm$2mv$3...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On 10/21/2010 5:36 PM Just to please that super-ego, chuckcar wrote
>> the following tidbit of information:
>>> OldGringo38<NoE...@ThisOldHouse.Con> wrote in
>>> news:i9qdq4$124$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69J35X20101020
>>>
>>> It's arguably impossible to have the big bang without parallel
>>> universes. After all it's quite difficult to have an explosion
>>> without something to explode *into*. And no, it's *not* in 3
>>> dimensions. The universe we know *is* the explosion, strange as that
>>> sounds. There *is* no place you can point and say "that's where the
>>> big bang occured".
>>>
>> Remember the Big Bang is still in its theory stage.
>>
> No, physical evidence backs it up. That makes it a law.
>
>
Mike Yetto
No. An amount of evidence that would make it unacceptable to
reject would make it Theory as opposed to hypothesis.
Mike "that capital T is significant" Yetto
chuckcar
You clearly don't know the meaning of *any* of the three. A Hypothesis
is something that someone *thinks* may be true, A theory is a hypothesis
proven by mathematics and a law is a theory which has actual
observations to show it to be a valid in the real world. Whether or not
it's the actual proper explanation or not.
Emperical evidence is only required or relevant if no math can back
something up.
Mike Yetto
Go here
<http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm>
A hypothesis is the starting point of describing an observed
phenomenon, and the only definition you came close to.
A Theory is a hypothesis that has been supported by repeated
testing and has no evidence disputing it. The URL shown
above states, "One definition of a theory is to say it's an
accepted hypothesis."
A Law explains a phenomenon but does not describe it.
Mike "it was cosmetology you studied, wasn't it?"
chuckcar
Ok, then what did Einstien *himself* do to make Relativity a theory
then? He did *absolutely* no observations. One couldn't in 1905.
> A Theory is a hypothesis that has been supported by repeated
> testing and has no evidence disputing it. The URL shown
> above states, "One definition of a theory is to say it's an
> accepted hypothesis."
>
> A Law explains a phenomenon but does not describe it.
>
> Mike "it was cosmetology you studied, wasn't it?"
Clearly whoever wrote that didn't know pure science, Only things like
psychology.
Mike Yetto
>Mike Yetto <mye...@nycap.invalid> wrote in
>> Go here
>> <http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm>
>>
>> A hypothesis is the starting point of describing an observed
>> phenomenon, and the only definition you came close to.
>>
>Ok, then what did Einstien *himself* do to make Relativity a theory
>then? He did *absolutely* no observations. One couldn't in 1905.
>> A Theory is a hypothesis that has been supported by repeated
>> testing and has no evidence disputing it. The URL shown
>> above states, "One definition of a theory is to say it's an
>> accepted hypothesis."
>>
>> A Law explains a phenomenon but does not describe it.
>>
>> Mike "it was cosmetology you studied, wasn't it?"
>Clearly whoever wrote that didn't know pure science, Only things like
>psychology.
"Dr. Helmenstine has bachelor of arts degrees in physics and
mathematics with a minor in chemistry from Hastings College in
Nebraska and a doctorate of philosophy in biomedical sciences
from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville."
See also:
<http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/a/hypothesis.htm>
<http://psychology.about.com/od/hindex/g/hypothesis.htm>
And especially for you:
<http://homeschooling.about.com/cs/sciexperiments/ht/cientificmethod.htm>
Mike "do your cosmetology studies top that?" Yetto
chuckcar
> chuckcar <ch...@nil.car> writes and having writ moves on.
>>Mike Yetto <mye...@nycap.invalid> wrote in
>>news:slrn201010231159...@may.eternal-september.org:
>
>>Ok, then what did Einstien *himself* do to make Relativity a theory
>>then? He did *absolutely* no observations. One couldn't in 1905.
>
>>> A Theory is a hypothesis that has been supported by repeated
>>> testing and has no evidence disputing it. The URL shown
>>> above states, "One definition of a theory is to say it's an
>>> accepted hypothesis."
>>>
>>> A Law explains a phenomenon but does not describe it.
>>>
>>> Mike "it was cosmetology you studied, wasn't it?"
>
>>Clearly whoever wrote that didn't know pure science, Only things like
>>psychology.
>
> "Dr. Helmenstine has bachelor of arts degrees in physics and
> mathematics with a minor in chemistry from Hastings College in
> Nebraska and a doctorate of philosophy in biomedical sciences
> from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville."
>
> See also:
> <http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/a/hypothesis.htm>
> <http://psychology.about.com/od/hindex/g/hypothesis.htm>
>
So he's only got three years university then. Never had to do research
at all or a scientific paper almost certainly. Chemistry isn't a pure
science BTW.
> And especially for you:
> <http://homeschooling.about.com/cs/sciexperiments/ht/cientificmethod.ht
> m>
>
> Mike "do your cosmetology studies top that?" Yetto
Real top rate universities there...
And it's cosmology BTW.
OldGringo38
Mike Yetto
Chemistry is not "pure" science? Well you are very close to a
"pure" idiot. Or rather, anyone found next to you is very close
to a "pure" idiot.
"She" and you never followed any of the links I supplied did you?
>> And especially for you:
>> <http://homeschooling.about.com/cs/sciexperiments/ht/cientificmethod.htm>
>>
What of the other links giving the same definition you claim is
flawed?
>> Mike "do your cosmetology studies top that?" Yetto
>Real top rate universities there...
>And it's cosmology BTW.
No cosmology is "a branch of astronomy that deals with the
origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe;
also :a theory dealing with these matters."
You know nothing of that or any other scientific discipline.
Your understanding goes no deeper than cosmetology which is "the
study and application of beauty treatment. Branches of specialty
including hairstyling, skin care, cosmetics, manicures/pedicures,
and electrology."
Mike "that is my hypothesis" Yetto
chuckcar
Not in the current context, no. It's no driven by math like Physics and
engineering are.
> "She" and you never followed any of the links I supplied did you?
>
>>> And especially for you:
>>> <http://homeschooling.about.com/cs/sciexperiments/ht/cientificmethod.
>>> htm>
>>>
No thank you. I don't need kiddie stuff to tell me about science. I
*have* a Bsc. Just like the "authority" you referred to.
>
> What of the other links giving the same definition you claim is
> flawed?
>
>>> Mike "do your cosmetology studies top that?" Yetto
>
>>Real top rate universities there...
>
>>And it's cosmology BTW.
>
> No cosmology is "a branch of astronomy that deals with the
> origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe;
> also :a theory dealing with these matters."
>
Right. Like Einstien's stuff. You know, relevant to the conversation.
So then you're talking about makeup for some inexplicable reason then?
> You know nothing of that or any other scientific discipline.
>
Riight. And you know less than that. Otherwise we wouldn't be having
this stupid argument.
OldGringo38
Mike Yetto
You are willfully stupid, which is orders of magnitude worse than
proudly ignorant.
Do you really think the study of chemistry is devoid of math? Do
you really think math is the sole litmus test of science? It is
not even the identifying attribute of a "hard" science.
>> "She" and you never followed any of the links I supplied did you?
>>
>>>> And especially for you:
>>>> <http://homeschooling.about.com/cs/sciexperiments/ht/cientificmethod.
>>>> htm>
>>>>
>No thank you. I don't need kiddie stuff to tell me about science.
Are you sure?
>I *have* a Bsc. Just like the "authority" you referred to.
No, the first authority I referred to, the one who was in
agreement with the others, has a PhD. Do you not know what that
abbreviation stands for? It is Doctor of Philosophy and hers is
in biochemistry.
You are too worthless to argue with, but I thought others might
benefit from seeing the differences among hypotheses, Theories
and Laws in a scientific context.
Mike "you, as always, are beyond hope" Yetto