Chipped My Nut!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr.Bootleg
  • Start date Start date
Victory Pete said:
Just what it says!
VP
Click to expand...

You are one fine troll I'll give you that because nobody and I mean NOBODY can be so consistently wrong about so many things in such a short space of time. I'm afraid this time you have just over played your hand just a little too much.

Good luck.
 
muttley600 said:
The body of evidence is stacking up against you because you quite obviously don't know about the manner in scientific investigation is carried out or about the life history of at least one of the subjects great minds and how he applied it to the subject matter.

I can't prove you haven't studied any of the science but by your argument the burden of proof is on you to disprove my proof.
Click to expand...

How come you always seem to twist everything around to suit your own agenda?
So you disagree with MY BELIEF that E=MC2 wasnt proven untill years later?
VP
 
Victory Pete said:
How come you always seem to twist everything around to suit your own agenda?
So you disagree with MY BELIEF that E=MC2 wasnt proven untill years later?
VP
Click to expand...

Yes I do. E=MC2 was proven the moment he presented the maths. Einstein knew exactly what he was investigating and why. He postulated the theory and proved it mathematically. The maths actually isn't that hard. He knew exactly what the implications of the proof were and that is why he took the time to alert the then President of the United states to the implications of his proven model and urged that they fund what was to become the Manhattan Project which in turn led to the development of the first atomic weapons. He got where he did by understanding what went before him and taking the anomalies that were recognised, postulating how they could be satisfactorily explained and then presented the whole thing to the world including his thought process which included no leaps of faith, blind or otherwise.

Seriously dude are you going to reinvent history as well now this could get really interesting.:)

Good luck with that too but rewriting history as well as physics may be just a little beyond even you.:D
 
Victory Pete said:
How come you always seem to twist everything around to suit your own agenda?
So you disagree with MY BELIEF that E=MC2 wasnt proven untill years later?
VP
Click to expand...

Oh and I don't have to twist anything I just have to stick to the FACTS as they are or in this case, as they were. That is all I'm doing.
 
Victory Pete said:
As usual you didnt answer the question.
VP
Click to expand...

OK what was the question again. I thought it was "So you disagree with MY BELIEF that E=MC2 wasnt proven untill years later?".

Maybe you had better ask me again and I'll do my best to answer it even though I probably won't know what it is.:confused:
 
Victory Pete said:
Please reread the above passage.
VP
Click to expand...

Dude there was nothing to prove E=MC2 is an equation that provides an explanation for the behaviour of matter and anti matter both of which were understood. It was applied to the real world almost instantly. What are you suggesting? That it hung around and he was the only guy that understood it? Or that he took a leap of faith to arrive at the equation? Either way it just wasn't the case. Please explain to me how E=MC2 wasn't proven for years? I have presented evidence thatit was in the form of the biggest man made explosion in the history of time (C) itself.

If you are saying that it wasn't understood then I would suggest that there are several million Japanese residents that would disagree with you on that one if they had been able.

I really am at a loss as to what you are claiming?
 
muttley600 said:
Dude there was nothing to prove E=MC2 is an equation that provides an explanation for the behaviour of matter and anti matter both of which were understood. It was applied to the real world almost instantly. What are you suggesting? That it hung around and he was the only guy that understood it? Or that he took a leap of faith to arrive at the equation? Either way it just wasn't the case. Please explain to me how E=MC2 wasn't proven for years? I have presented evidence thatit was in the form of the biggest man made explosion in the history of time (C) itself.

If you are saying that it wasn't understood then I would suggest that there are several million Japanese residents that would disagree with you on that one if they had been able.

I really am at a loss as to what you are claiming?
Click to expand...

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/21/einstein-formula.html

Read it and weep
VP
 
Victory Pete said:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/21/einstein-formula.html

Read it and weep
VP
Click to expand...

You need to read it VP that is proof of further postulations and hypothesis. The model was proven and applied with the splitting of the atom.It really isn't a secret or mysterious now nor was it at the time.

What has been demonstrated in that article is not E=MC2 but the proof of the existence of the sub atomic particles that science couldn't physically witness at the time.

You really are not a scientist are you. That article describes what us physicists call corroboration.
 
muttley600 said:
You need to read it VP that is proof of further postulations and hypothesis. The model was proven and applied with the splitting of the atom.It really isn't a secret or mysterious now nor was it at the time.

What has been demonstrated in that article is not E=MC2 but the proof of the existence of the sub atomic particles that science couldn't physically witness at the time.

You really are not a scientist are you. That article describes what us physicists call corroboration.
Click to expand...

You really do twist everything around dont you.
VP
 
Victory Pete said:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/21/einstein-formula.html

Read it and weep
VP
Click to expand...

Here is a school boy explanation of what e=mc2 actually is and means. Pay particular attention to this part which kind of corrobarates what I have been trying to say to you.... No need to weep just read and understand.;)

Albert Einstein was able to see where an understanding of this formula would lead. Although peaceful by nature and politics, he helped write a letter to the President of the United States, urging him to fund research into the development of an atomic bomb ... before the Nazis or Japan developed their own first. The result was the Manhatten Project, which did in fact produce the first tangible evidence of ... the atomic bomb!
Click to expand...
 
Victory Pete said:
You really do twist everything around dont you.
VP
Click to expand...

How is that twisting anything?

You said people couldn't understand/explain/comprehend/whatever e=mc2. and that Einstein took leaps of faith/had blind faith/whatever.

I said they could and Einstein never had blind faith or need for it, and that e=mc2 was understood and applied when they split the atom.

How is that twisting anything?

I then said that the article you cite is corroborative in relation to e=mc2 which it is
 
Victory Pete said:
How come you always seem to twist everything around to suit your own agenda?
So you disagree with MY BELIEF that E=MC2 wasnt proven untill years later?
VP
Click to expand...
I do. E=mc^2 was derived mathematically, not just pulled out of the air as something that sounded pretty good. Also, it didn't happen in a vacuum; Einstein had considerable math chops to back up his ideas.

Perhaps what you are thinking of was his postulation that light bends around massive bodies. This was not physically proven until years later when photos were taken of a solar eclipse which showed stars around the edge of the sun which otherwise would have been occluded by the disk of the sun. Nevertheless, this concept was mathematically derived, not just something that sounded good to Einstein.

Now in your case, your ideas would have a lot more credence if you were a giant among men in the study of the physics of vibrational dynamics. You aren't seriously comparing yourself to Einstein, are you?

Many, many people entertain the fantasy of being the uneducated shining star who comes out of nowhere with ideas that fly in the face of "experts" and change the world. In reality, it almost* never happens that way; science is a plodding beast that depends on the interrelation of many educated minds.

*I say "almost" just to hedge my bets; I really don't think it ever happens that way.
 
ggunn said:
I do. E=mc^2 was derived mathematically, not just pulled out of the air as something that sounded pretty good. Also, it didn't happen in a vacuum; Einstein had considerable math chops to back up his ideas.

Perhaps what you are thinking of was his postulation that light bends around massive bodies. This was not physically proven until years later when photos were taken of a solar eclipse which showed stars around the edge of the sun which otherwise would have been occluded by the disk of the sun. Nevertheless, this concept was mathematically derived, not just something that sounded good to Einstein.

Now in your case, your ideas would have a lot more credence if you were a giant among men in the study of the physics of vibrational dynamics. You aren't seriously comparing yourself to Einstein, are you?

Many, many people entertain the fantasy of being the uneducated shining star who comes out of nowhere with ideas that fly in the face of "experts" and change the world. In reality, it almost* never happens that way; science is a plodding beast that depends on the interrelation of many educated minds.

*I say "almost" just to hedge my bets; I really don't think it ever happens that way.
Click to expand...

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/21/einstein-formula.html

VP
 
No I am not comparing myself with Einstien. Please follow and read this thread carefully.
VP
 
ggunn said:
I do. E=mc^2 was derived mathematically, not just pulled out of the air as something that sounded pretty good. Also, it didn't happen in a vacuum; Einstein had considerable math chops to back up his ideas.

Perhaps what you are thinking of was his postulation that light bends around massive bodies. This was not physically proven until years later when photos were taken of a solar eclipse which showed stars around the edge of the sun which otherwise would have been occluded by the disk of the sun. Nevertheless, this concept was mathematically derived, not just something that sounded good to Einstein.

Now in your case, your ideas would have a lot more credence if you were a giant among men in the study of the physics of vibrational dynamics. You aren't seriously comparing yourself to Einstein, are you?

Many, many people entertain the fantasy of being the uneducated shining star who comes out of nowhere with ideas that fly in the face of "experts" and change the world. In reality, it almost* never happens that way; science is a plodding beast that depends on the interrelation of many educated minds.

*I say "almost" just to hedge my bets; I really don't think it ever happens that way.
Click to expand...

I particularly like this bit. So true.

I think, ( watch out opinion coming ;) ) that the true greats of science are the ones that have the greatest insight into the bits that don't stack up but that needs a solid grounding in previous study. Those individuals do not rely in any way on leaps of faith or blind faith as you so eloquently put it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top