Switch off at the socket?

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:08:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Sorry Norman, very deeply sorry that you haven't the brain and
certainly not the patience and humility to even begin to understand
even Newtonian physics..let alone anything else.

I understand them very well, thank you.

Trouble is Newtonian physics, as a model, doesn't fit modern
observations. Einstien came up with the General and Special Theories
of Relativity, they fit a a bit better. Then along comes Quantum
Mechanics which, as has already being pointed out, doesn't fit with
Relativity. Both models do fit the observations so as they don't
support each other they both must be "wrong" somewhere. Hence the
current quest for The Grand Unified Theory.

Norman, I suggest you wander off and do some in depth reading about
the advancements in the scientific theories relating to Quantum
Mechanics that have taken place in the last 30+ years. You appear to
be stuck in the theories of 50+ years ago.

Unfortunately that won't help at all with situations that don't involve
quantum mechanics in the slightest.

The physics of sub-atomic particles has no relevance unless you're
considering sub-atomic particles. Winding a cuckoo clock doesn't.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or
what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher
energy state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

A Nobel prize beckons if only you can prove it.

Since no *scientific* theory has ever been *proven*, it would
more be a Nobel prize for theology actually.

Don't be absurd. Loads of scientific theories have been proven to
loads or people's satisfaction.

Oh dear. You really know NOTHING. NO real scientist would EVER make
such a claim.

They would actually. It's all about the standard of proof one
expects.

If you're saying that Nobel prizes are only
dished out for absolute 100% proof with no room for error at all
ever, you're wrong.

No, I am not. I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific
theory AT ALL in any terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced
the whole cause of civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th
century.

You're applying, I think, an absolute standard of proof, which of
course is impossible to attain in anything. Back here in the real
world, even scientists accept a little less.



Why don't you go and play with yourself, and read up on e.g. Karl
Popper for light relief?

If you have a point, do make it.

Read Karl Popper. That is the point. Try 'conjectures and refutations'
to start with.

You cannot put any modern science in the correct context until you
understand the debate and his conclusions about what science actually
is, and can be, until you have.

Then you will understand why your position is philosophically
meaningless.

The point is, I'm not having a philosophical argument but a scientific one.

Jerry wrote:
"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
snip

[ in reply to Andy Furniss ]
:
: So the Hoover Dam did make the bright lights possible in Las
Vegas by
: first providing power to the city and fostering its growth, but
by
: the time of your visit, the city was no longer using Hoover Dam
as
: a power source.

Also didn't the Hoover Dam make it possible to sustain Las Vegas
(as a major habitation) in other ways, such as a sustainable and
reliable water supply?

Fairly sure that there was always water there.

Underground.

probably pumped with windmills. The desert is permanently windy there.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or
what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher
energy state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

A Nobel prize beckons if only you can prove it.

Since no *scientific* theory has ever been *proven*, it would
more be a Nobel prize for theology actually.

Don't be absurd. Loads of scientific theories have been proven to
loads or people's satisfaction.

Oh dear. You really know NOTHING. NO real scientist would EVER make
such a claim.

They would actually. It's all about the standard of proof one
expects.
If you're saying that Nobel prizes are only
dished out for absolute 100% proof with no room for error at all
ever, you're wrong.

No, I am not. I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific
theory AT ALL in any terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced
the whole cause of civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th
century.

You're applying, I think, an absolute standard of proof, which of
course is impossible to attain in anything. Back here in the real
world, even scientists accept a little less.



Why don't you go and play with yourself, and read up on e.g. Karl
Popper for light relief?

If you have a point, do make it.

Read Karl Popper. That is the point. Try 'conjectures and refutations'
to start with.

You cannot put any modern science in the correct context until you
understand the debate and his conclusions about what science actually
is, and can be, until you have.

Then you will understand why your position is philosophically
meaningless.

The point is, I'm not having a philosophical argument but a scientific one.

The point is, you don't understand either, nor their inextricable
connection.

You are stuck in a limited 17th century worldview, that has proved to be
inadequate.

So really there is no help for you, since your arrogance precludes a
rational converation.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:24:01 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Then they're all unbelievably stupid, regardless of their qualifications.
Where on earth did they get the idea to which the words China Syndrome are
meant to relate? What were those words meant to convey?

Maybe 'china' as in "fragile container, easily broken, resulting in
possibly disastrous loss of contents" ?

--

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
: Jerry wrote:
: "J G Miller" wrote in message
: news :
: snip
:
: [ in reply to Andy Furniss ]
: :
: : So the Hoover Dam did make the bright lights possible in
Las
: Vegas by
: : first providing power to the city and fostering its growth,
but
: by
: : the time of your visit, the city was no longer using Hoover
Dam
: as
: : a power source.
:
: Also didn't the Hoover Dam make it possible to sustain Las
Vegas
: (as a major habitation) in other ways, such as a sustainable
and
: reliable water supply?
:
: Fairly sure that there was always water there.
:
: Underground.
:
: probably pumped with windmills. The desert is permanently windy
there.
:

Indeed but I did say *as a major habitation*, Las Vegas was
nothing more that a dust-bowl desert settlement before being
developed into what most now think of as Las Vegas IIRC,
something changes that allowed made it able to support many tens
of thousands of people rather than a few hundred.
--
Regards, Jerry.

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:24:01 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Then they're all unbelievably stupid, regardless of their qualifications.
Where on earth did they get the idea to which the words China Syndrome are
meant to relate? What were those words meant to convey?

Maybe 'china' as in "fragile container, easily broken, resulting in
possibly disastrous loss of contents" ?

No, my understanding is that in a nuclear core melt down there's nothing to
stop it burning its way through through the planet and popping out the other
side (which of course gravity wouldn't allow). Do that from the US, and you
end up in China (except you wouldn't, it would be the middle of the Indian Ocean.



--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

Well, Alexander, that turned out to be a brilliant thread!

SteveT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

The point is, I'm not having a philosophical argument but a
scientific one.

The point is, you don't understand either, nor their inextricable
connection.

You are stuck in a limited 17th century worldview, that has proved to
be inadequate.

So really there is no help for you, since your arrogance precludes a
rational converation.

You just can't accept I'm right, can you?

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

The point is, I'm not having a philosophical argument but a
scientific one.

The point is, you don't understand either, nor their inextricable
connection.

You are stuck in a limited 17th century worldview, that has proved to
be inadequate.

So really there is no help for you, since your arrogance precludes a
rational converation.

You just can't accept I'm right, can you?

No, because you just sit there making assertions repeatedly without
attempting to back them up or producing credible refutations of citations
that other people use to back up their claims.