Part of the problem her is that the word "wrong" is used instead of "innacurate". Newton was NOT wrong - just innnacurate at very high speeds (speeds he really had no concept of at the time). Likewise, the "Gradualistic" description of the fact of evolution was corrected through the Punctuated Equilibrium assertion. The initial offset error of radio-carbon dating was found and corrected - and then enhanced even more through the use of other radio-isotopes. I understand that the law of gravitational attraction is being modified for very small (sub-nuclear) and very large (pan-galactic) distances. Examples abound - science is self-accuratizing (sp?). The statement that "science has often been wrong is a compliment and glorification of science.
...and how did the fossils in the sandstone get there?...and how did the fossils get into the limestone?...and how did the ferny fossils get into the coal. I think you miss the original posters intent: the ferns and the stuff-that-became coal had to exist contemporaneously.
"jpellino" hit it on the nose, but he left out other examples of academic narrow-mindedness, such as the Bohr theory of the atom and the theory of plate tectonics. Both were rejected by the long-hairs until a generation had died. And they were SCIENCE - which depends far less on "interpretation" and opinion than art. I'm afraid you are up against human nature and will have to tough it out until about 2020 or 2030 AD. Pity. I kinda like some of the CG stuff, such as Scott Moore's very interesting work.
Re:Time to get rid of Einstein
on
Excess Heat
·
· Score: 1
Yeah...but its fun to read the rants and replies. You did, didn't you?
"Nuclear physicists declared that because no nuclear products could be demonstrated, the measurement of excess heat was flawed"
Hmmm. I seem to recall that the absence of nuclear products was the argument that *fusion* was not taking place, and that P&F's *measurement* of excess heat was seriously flawed.
The subtle twisting and omission of facts - or lack thereof - is typical of the CF articles I have read. Lots of reasoning, lots of question-begging, and lots of second-hand reports. But no cigar. In short "They are passionate, but do not persuade".
You read my mind. All spammers should have to take the "Prison Proctology" course! Repeat after me: "No, I will not send spam! Ow! No I will not send spam! Yeeaaaoooowwww!"
Slashdot Mirror
and you just walk out into the field and dig
a small hole and...uh...wait a minute...
Um...
Windows box? I'd worry more about your table saw.
Part of the problem her is that the word "wrong" is used instead of "innacurate". Newton was NOT wrong - just innnacurate at very high speeds (speeds he really had no concept of at the time). Likewise, the "Gradualistic" description of the fact of evolution was corrected through the Punctuated Equilibrium assertion. The initial offset error of radio-carbon dating was found and corrected - and then enhanced even more through the use of other radio-isotopes. I understand that the law of gravitational attraction is being modified for very small (sub-nuclear) and very large (pan-galactic) distances. Examples abound - science is self-accuratizing (sp?). The statement that "science has often been wrong is a compliment and glorification of science.
...and how did the fossils in the sandstone get there? ...and how did the fossils get into the limestone?...and how did the ferny fossils get into the coal. I think you miss the original posters intent: the ferns and the stuff-that-became coal had to exist contemporaneously.
Now *where* do we find oil....
What if there are TWO observers?
With "six-degree-of-freedom, precision-force-feedback" yada yada....why don't these folks just play real ping pong?
So....we are all involved in bunk every day of our lives? I KNEW IT!
"jpellino" hit it on the nose, but he left out other examples of academic narrow-mindedness, such as the Bohr theory of the atom and the theory of plate tectonics. Both were rejected by the long-hairs until a generation had died. And they were SCIENCE - which depends far less on "interpretation" and opinion than art. I'm afraid you are up against human nature and will have to tough it out until about 2020 or 2030 AD. Pity. I kinda like some of the CG stuff, such as Scott Moore's very interesting work.
Yeah...but its fun to read the rants and replies. You did, didn't you?
"Nuclear physicists declared that because no nuclear products could be demonstrated, the measurement of excess heat was flawed" Hmmm. I seem to recall that the absence of nuclear products was the argument that *fusion* was not taking place, and that P&F's *measurement* of excess heat was seriously flawed. The subtle twisting and omission of facts - or lack thereof - is typical of the CF articles I have read. Lots of reasoning, lots of question-begging, and lots of second-hand reports. But no cigar. In short "They are passionate, but do not persuade".
You read my mind. All spammers should have to take the "Prison Proctology" course! Repeat after me: "No, I will not send spam! Ow! No I will not send spam! Yeeaaaoooowwww!"
Ditto. I tried Amazon, Borders, and Barnes & Noble but none have this puppy in their data base.