dilligaf Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, paul's got wright said: You couldn't lace chinas boots putred x Er, whoosh ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 3 hours ago, dilligaf said: I thought it was something to do with puddings and eating. Shows what I know then The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The hypothesis is the pudding, the experiment is the eating. If it doesnt match experiment, then it's wrong, doesn't matter who says it or how fancy tbey make it sound. If it diagrees with experimet it is wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 15 minutes ago, dilligaf said: Er, whoosh ? Yep. Went straight over your head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 29 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: I don't understand why you keep asking for this. That would be the requirement in order to satisfy the scientific method. Obervable, testable repeatable. Without this nihl doesnt have science to back up uhtreds religious beliefs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 35 minutes ago, paul's got wright said: Rebuttals to what by whom? What's another post, To someone who's lost every argument that he's made? What's another post, To someone who's getting used to being alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 8 minutes ago, Bobbie Bobster said: What's another post, To someone who's lost every argument that he's made? What's another post, To someone who's getting used to being alone? Dont know. Give us a clue blob? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 I should probably take up smoking pot again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 Like jo moonguy! x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 12 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: I should probably take up smoking pot again. Reading your postings I thought you still were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 7 hours ago, manxy said: Maybe you should speak to him about it as it seems your still following the company? Following the company? What does that even mean. I doubt there is any point taking it up with him - I know nothing about him, he knows nothing about me, the possibility my communications with him would be picked up is zero. But I can communicate with you and attempt to give you tools to understand the world to show you this guy is talking tosh. I think we have been brought up in a world of deceit and you yourself blindly follow those lies but (writing as you do) whether this is because you yourself are irrational and dumb and too proud to admit that you got some stuff wrong or being paid to say it with supporting trolls who I can no longer see, but hey-ho, there's a bonus to the ignore button. Manxy, your paranoia is genuinely disturbing. Lies paid. Oh goodness. What a way to view people. I disagree with you quite strongly about deceit. I work in a world where companies work hugely hard to be truthful. Why? Mainly caveat emptor I suppose - customers holding clients to repeatedly produce certified, warranted goods with recognised, open quality standards. This goes right to individual responsibility - the engineers who sign off are legally responsible for that, and as many issues I'm working on are safety critical if there was an accident those people would be held legally as well as morally responsibility for anyone getting hurt from what they have signed off. I can assure you it makes a Hazard Study quite a lot more serious when you will be held responsible if it goes wrong. That breeds a culture of verification and brutal honesty - you need to know products are in spec and so certification is demanded and checked down the product and contract line. Prove these products are safe, or they don't enter the store. Bottom line is that everything needs to be reexamined and without taking a piece of paper as proof and this is done in a controlled area by agreed selected level earthers and conspiracy ball earthers. Everything needs to be reexamined ... but it is every day a thousand times ... everytime someone uses a GPS system, or a weather forecast or a thousand other systems which only work because the earth is a sphere (see p 185, pdf page 4 here for how the rotation and the radius of the earth are important in weather forecasting models) You believed Albert Einstein and yet he was proved wrong which goes to show that every person who believed in one of his theories was also wrong and that includes the big bucks scientists, professors and other supposedly esteemed professionals, including those from the liars Nasa. Oh goodness ... can you please remove the word proof - science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with how well the model can explain the data within defined error limits. Newtonian gravity is fine for most uses, but breaks down when the gravitational field gets too strong - its predictions of the orbit of Mercury were poor. General Relativity explains this far better - on a huge range of scales General relativity is the best explanation we've got - gravitational waves, the movement of stars around the black hole at the centre of the galaxy etc etc Einstein rules and it has been a continual disappointment to scientists that the data keeps fitting the curves - they would love GR to break down opening the way for a new theoretical understanding, but on the macro scale that hasn't happened. On the micro-scale though Quantum Physics rules and GR's predictions are useless, but noone has come up with a quantum theory of gravity and such a theory would win a noble and much beyond it. All that said, lets find out more about this bendy water which you firmly believe is there and please mention which canals can have a slope without water needing lock gates. You don't understand what down means - water will move to its lowest energy potential and quite definitely on a sphere curves with the surface. Genuinely Manxy, what do you think water would do on a sphere pulled to its centre of gravity? How would it stay flat when pulled to the centre of the sphere? You won't answer that of course because you'll go off on another tangent and say look at this or that, but you won't answer the bendy water question and the equation which goes with it or will you? The simplest equation to use is F = G x m1 x m2 / r2 - it is only an approximation, but it works perfectly well. It says gravity is constant at a fixed radius around a sphere - as water basically cannot resist constantly applied forces (viscosity requires the shear to be varying and surface tension is too small to be a factor on the marco scale) water will be pulled to a uniform depth around the sphere. Comprende? Sure there is the devil in the detail - mountains, density anomalies etc etc but can you at least understand the basics? For those on my ignore list - Not bothered what you say as you're not worth knowing anyway and the place really becomes a much nicer manxforums without you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 8 hours ago, paul's got wright said: You couldn't lace chinas boots putred x You’re right...he’s presently wearing his slippers. The flat ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Uhtred said: You’re right...he’s presently wearing his slippers. The flat ones. Pathetic patter putred x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 2 hours ago, paul's got wright said: Pathetic patter putred x Yes, your comedic contributions are so incisive and original aren’t they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 8 hours ago, Uhtred said: Yes, your comedic contributions are so incisive and original aren’t they? Im here for the sciences, you happen to be amusing. A happy bi product of the question gerry posed, and subseqent responses. The thread is fun because of the responses, but its very informative as china has so well demonstrated, as have others. How come you love it in here so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 43 minutes ago, paul's got wright said: Im here for the sciences, you happen to be amusing. A happy bi product of the question gerry posed, and subseqent responses. The thread is fun because of the responses, but its very informative as china has so well demonstrated, as have others. How come you love it in here so much? You wouldn’t know proper science if it fell on your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.