Chipped My Nut!

[Victory Pete]

WelWe

When you bring in to question the validity of accepted physics and materials science then no it is not open to discussion. It is just plain wrong and I and others will point it out. If you continue to claim that it is correct then I will ask for proof because if something is known to be true the proof is readily available and it shouldn't be hard to post. I would always post supporting evidence should anyone ask me to do so, it's just a plain courtesy. Once the evidence or supporting information is out there then a proper discussion can be had about it's credibility, not before.

As to resorting to insults I'd remind you again that it wasn't me or anyone else here that started that whole trend a while back by neg repping popular members, insulting both light and myself and continually referring to those with a good deal of knowledge and experience as arrogant know-it-alls and the like. I can point you to the thread in which that was previously discussed if you wish.

Seriously VP if you put in as much effort into learning the accepted stuff instead of thinking it up yourself and trawling the internet for a shred of dubious proof you'd be half way to being an arrogant know-it-all yourself.

I was always insulted and reprimanded first. I was neg repped first also, I didnt even know what that was then. Anyway that is history. I will continue to have an imagination and will have to sort everything out myself, It isnt always easy to absolutely prove something. Sometimes you have to have blind faith. Most of the great scientists of the past were regularly wrong, so what? It gets sorted out eventually.
VP

 

[muttley600]

WelWe

I was always insulted and reprimanded first. I was neg repped first also, I didnt even know what that was then. Anyway that is history. I will continue to have an imagination and will have to sort everything out myself, It isnt always easy to absolutely prove something. Sometimes you have to have blind faith. Most of the great scientists of the past were regularly wrong, so what? It gets sorted out eventually.
VP

The information is out there. Physics is physics and it is demonstrable. Blind faith will not change natural laws or the way things behave. Not one notable physicist has started from a position of blind faith. All have started with a sound understanding of what has gone before them and in later years from a position of postulating what has previously been inadequately explained or inconclusive.

It isnt always easy to absolutely prove something.

If you claim something to be fact you better be able to prove it if accepted science says otherwise especially if it contradicts what has been understood since Pythagoras was a boy.

Look at it this way. I can come here and say red is actually blue, no harm but folks are going to laugh at me unless I can prove it. If I come here and tell people that I can run my car on molasses instead of petrol then even if I'm prepared to try it I'd expect to be aggressively challenged because the consequences of others trying the same are going to be costly to them.. Telling people that because you believe something to be the case that it is ok for them to do likewise when it is not is simply irresponsible. Whether you are a troll or simply misguided is irrelevant I would respond in the same fashion.

If you want to "chew the fat" as you suggest then join us in the cave this isn't the place. You will not get treated any differently but you would be welcome to say what the hell you like as long as you are prepared to take it in return. The plus is that you will make new and better acquaintances than you seem to be doing here, myself included, I love messing about in there as a bit of a diversion from the hum drum. and I'd welcome your input there.

I'll post a link to the examples of abuse throwing later when I have a minute to search it out.

 

[Victory Pete]

The information is out there. Physics is physics and it is demonstrable. Blind faith will not change natural laws or the way things behave. Not one notable physicist has started from a position of blind faith. All have started with a sound understanding of what has gone before them and in later years from a position of postulating what has previously been inadequately explained or inconclusive.


If you claim something to be fact you better be able to prove it if accepted science says otherwise especially if it contradicts what has been understood since Pythagoras was a boy.

Look at it this way. I can come here and say red is actually blue, no harm but folks are going to laugh at me unless I can prove it. If I come here and tell people that I can run my car on molasses instead of petrol then even if I'm prepared to try it I'd expect to be aggressively challenged because the consequences of others trying the same are going to be costly to them.. Telling people that because you believe something to be the case that it is ok for them to do likewise when it is not is simply irresponsible. Whether you are a troll or simply misguided is irrelevant I would respond in the same fashion.

If you want to "chew the fat" as you suggest then join us in the cave this isn't the place. You will not get treated any differently but you would be welcome to say what the hell you like as long as you are prepared to take it in return. The plus is that you will make new and better acquaintances than you seem to be doing here, myself included, I love messing about in there as a bit of a diversion from the hum drum. and I'd welcome your input there.

I'll post a link to the examples of abuse throwing later when I have a minute to search it out.

I have a few great friends here, I have recieved alot of support in both PM's and with posts. Okay thanks for the info, I will take it with a grain of salt!
VP

 

[ggunn]

It isnt always easy to absolutely prove something.

Correctamundo. Hearing is subjective, and one cannot prove (or disprove) subjective things objectively.

That's why there is so much snake oil associated with music and audio. The new age mindset has latched onto the concept that anything that cannot be proven false must be considered true. I do not ascribe to it.

 

[Victory Pete]

Physicists and scientist surely must have had to have blind faith when coming up with some theories that were revolutionary. What about Einstein? By the way,can you prove your statement about this?
VP

 

[muttley600]

I have a few great friends here, I have recieved alot of support in both PM's and with posts. Okay thanks for the info, I will take it with a grain of salt!
VP

Good for you. Take it however you like there is no malice intended in my posts just a desire to see accurate and factual information here when it's needed.

 

[muttley600]

Physicists and scientist surely must have had to have blind faith when coming up with some theories that were revolutionary. What about Einstein? By the way,can you prove your statement about this?
VP

Sorry I just can't make head nor tail of that? What are you stating and what are you asking?

 

[muttley600]

Physicists and scientist surely must have had to have blind faith when coming up with some theories that were revolutionary. What about Einstein? By the way,can you prove your statement about this?
VP

Oh and when you say "]Physicists and scientist surely must have had to have blind faith when coming up with some theories that were revolutionary" is this a statement or a question? It is unclear to me.

If it is a statement then I'm sorry to say that I am unaware of any physicist or scientist that used blind faith as an abstract or part of their model when postulating something. Maybe you could point one out to me?

 

[Victory Pete]

Sorry I just can't make head nor tail of that? What are you stating and what are you asking?

You said not one physicist ever had blind faith, can you prove that?
I think some must have to come up with far out theories.
VP

 

[Victory Pete]

Oh and when you say "]Physicists and scientist surely must have had to have blind faith when coming up with some theories that were revolutionary" is this a statement or a question? It is unclear to me.

If it is a statement then I'm sorry to say that I am unaware of any physicist or scientist that used blind faith as an abstract or part of their model when postulating something. Maybe you could point one out to me?

How would you ever know what they were thinking! Are you kidding?
VP

 

[muttley600]

Any hoo VP I'm done for now. I Have to hit the shops for some grub for later or the kids are going hungry tomorrow.

 

[muttley600]

How would you ever know what they were thinking! Are you kidding?
VP

We KNOW because it goes like this-

Scientist studies subject and previous findings. Scientist has idea. Scientist draws up a model to prove or disprove idea. Scientist actually does prove or disprove idea. Scientist writes abstract of process so far including thought process. Scientist then presents detailed written evidence and data including conclusions and thought processes. That's how investigative science has pretty much always worked.

When I was involved in research they wouldn't even consider publishing a paper unless the abstract was approved and signed by an accredited institute. The abstract must include a reasoned and rational account of your thought process. Yes even Einstein wrote abstracts to preface his resaerch.

 

[muttley600]

See you learn something every day huh VP.

See you'all later......

 

[Victory Pete]

We KNOW because it goes like this-

Scientist studies subject and previous findings. Scientist has idea. Scientist draws up a model to prove or disprove idea. Scientist actually does prove or disprove idea. Scientist writes abstract of process so far including thought process. Scientist then presents detailed written evidence and data including conclusions and thought processes. That's how investigative science has pretty much always worked.

When I was involved in research they wouldn't even consider publishing a paper unless the abstract was approved and signed by an accredited institute. The abstract must include a reasoned and rational account of your thought process. Yes even Einstein wrote abstracts to preface his resaerch.

Not so fast! You or anybody else has no idea what all and every scientist or physicist was ever thinking about when they came up with thier theories. Some were just wrong! A wrong theory was probably based on a lot of blind faith. Einstien had a huge blunder he devoted years to,what would you call his faith. You really must be joking!

 

[Victory Pete]

Also they couldnt prove or disprove E=MC2 for years! What faith would you call that?
VP

 

[muttley600]

Not so fast! You or anybody else has no idea what all and every scientist or physicist was ever thinking about when they came up with thier theories. Some were just wrong! A wrong theory was probably based on a lot of blind faith. Einstien had a huge blunder he devoted years to,what would you call his faith. You really must be joking!

VP are you really that clueless on how scientific investigation works? I find that astonishing even for a troll likeyou. It does at least add proof to one thing and that is that you have never studied any of the sciences.

 

[muttley600]

Also they couldnt prove or disprove E=MC2 for years! What faith would you call that?
VP

Say What now.

 

[Victory Pete]

Say What now.

Just what it says!
VP

 

[Victory Pete]

VP are you really that clueless on how scientific investigation works? I find that astonishing even for a troll likeyou. It does at least add proof to one thing and that is that you have never studied any of the sciences.

Yes I have.
VP

 

[muttley600]

Yes I have.
VP

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.