Temperature is already defined from phase changes at certain pressures.
Now find a way to define pressure and you're probably not done.
Re:The proof that physic isn't full of fraud...
on
Ununoctium Wrapup
·
· Score: 1
I am a bit suprised someone modded you up.
You have presented a straw man argument.
AIDS research, tabacco "science", or even the bet-the-farm ideologies of the nuclear power industry
When someone fudges their data for alterior motivations, that is not science - no more than Hitler was a Christian.
And I am not commiting any sort of fallacy here, because science *gasp* actually has definitions for itself, and I am most absolutely sure that tobacco science qualifies for almost none of those definitions.
And as for your second claim, science does not present the absolute and almighty Truth and it does not proclaim to do so. If you were let down, then I am sorry, none of us really has a clue.
A physicist conjecturing about time travel is a form of mental masteurbation. I don't know of a singe physicist that really believes in time travel. Name some scientists that have stated that time travel is a physical reality, that can be reproduced in the lab. Oh and Alex Chu doesn't count.
And Paul Feyerabend is full of shit. You don't have to go through the "evil system" to do science. If a 12 year old Amish kid discovered the TOE and it was verifiable, then no one would give a shit what training he had. The only votes are experiment and experiment.
You can try to argue that objective=shared subjective, you can philosophize all you want, but science is the simplest form of truth that there is - science is merely observation and little bit of thinking.
Seriously, though, it doesn't matter how bad the damage is, if you do something clearly unintended and dangerous with a product, YOU ARE STILL AN IDIOT.
dude, she had to have a skin graft around her vagina
I bet you wish they still manufactured lawn darts and baby toys composed entirely of small plastic parts.
Many people in India speak English, it was a colony. It is easily one of the two most common languages there. In the future it may become the most common language for various reasons. There are hundreds to thousands of languages in India, but only two really common languages - hindi and English. But hindi is only spoken in India, so many people are putting more emphasis in learning English as it is a universal language.
By that interpretation the whole theory of evolution would fit inside the creation story. And if you get hung up on the 7 days thing, Jesus himself later says "A day is but a 1000 years to God" (sorry I couldn't find the ref) saying that God is not bound by time, which leads me to believe that the 7 days is a metaphor to put the vast amount of time for creation into terms (especially ancient) humans could understand.
If God is traveling arbitrarily close to the speed of light from the Earth's reference frame, then each day can be arbitrarily long.
And thus special relativity saves the fundamentalist God just as swift as it destroyed Santa Claus.
I think perhaps you and many other people have a confused opinion on the role of science and religion. I think I can clear this up.
1) (some) Christians take a very stupid stance against science that makes them look stupid and be very vulnerable to attack 2) The people who hate Christianity want to attack it, evolution gives them ammunition 3) Some scientists hate Christianity
If there is ever a scientist that it is a scientific truth that God does or does not exist, then he should have his title taken away - or be the next messiah.
Perhaps if many Christians kept up an onslaught against the Telitubbies, then there would be a great wave of Telitubbie attacks upon religion. And people would conclude that fans of PBS hate religion.
and Maxima is a possible replacement for Mathematica. It is actually much better at somethings and much worse at others. The old maintainer died and it is apparent that he had everything in a hacked together state. If the new maintainers clean it up, it could upsurp Mathematica in usefulness within 5 years or so.
As I refute some of your claims I just want to say one thing. I am tired of being nice to you people. You are all idiots and I am starting to not care if you ever understand anything. It is my last moral fiber that forces me to clean up the garbage that you have vomited here.
1) Natural selection is the core theory and has not changed at all. It is quite similar to the principles at work in "dog breeding". Though I can half see your point. But that is how science operates. Science starts with the dirt and works towards the truth, as opposed to religion where you start with the truth.
2) Evolution dictates that there are no super species in nature. If there were some species with incredible powers then that species would quickly exhaust all of its resources and then die out. As far as quality versus quantity - nature dictates that you can't have both, note elephants versus cockroaches.
3) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
4) If you were in physics or chemistry right now, I would give you a flat F. You have failed to state your domain and have only proved that you lack any understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. Closed systems tend towards disorder, and a species never is and never will be a closed system.
5) True, but if some Christians did place themselves in such a vulnerable position then the areligious would not have so much ammunition.
People such as your selves turn curious people away from the Church. Christians are supposed to be representatives of Christ.
I agree. I have a math and physics BS and over the 5 year course of attaining it I ended up taking 1 communications class, 3 english classes, 2 foreign language classes, 1 history, 1 sociology, 1 anthropology, 2 psychology, 3 philosophy, 1 music, 1 art, and who knows what else. That's 16 classes, so figure 48 semester credit hours.
My friend with a history major only needed one math at the precalculus level (and he took calculus in high school) and one sequence of lab science, which he took geology or whatever the cryp science is at our university.
I don't think everyone needs to be trained scientists. And I do not think that everyone has what it takes to get through an entire year of calculus without taking a hit to their GPA, but a liberal arts education is unbalanced.
Perhaps a good measure of how unbalanced the US education system is, is the general GRE scores. Scientists and engineers generally do exceptionally well in the logic and analytic, and moderatley well in the verbal. While english majors do average in the logic and analytic, but only slightly better than the scientists and engineers in the verbal. You would think that the differences in the two disciplines' specialties wrt each other would be the same, but they are not even close. The scientists scores come out much higher over all. This indicates that either our educational system is unbalanced or the GRE is.
Slashdot Mirror
Temperature is already defined from phase changes at certain pressures.
Now find a way to define pressure and you're probably not done.
I am a bit suprised someone modded you up.
You have presented a straw man argument.
AIDS research, tabacco "science", or even the bet-the-farm ideologies of the nuclear power industry
When someone fudges their data for alterior motivations, that is not science - no more than Hitler was a Christian.
And I am not commiting any sort of fallacy here, because science *gasp* actually has definitions for itself, and I am most absolutely sure that tobacco science qualifies for almost none of those definitions.
And as for your second claim, science does not present the absolute and almighty Truth and it does not proclaim to do so. If you were let down, then I am sorry, none of us really has a clue.
A physicist conjecturing about time travel is a form of mental masteurbation. I don't know of a singe physicist that really believes in time travel. Name some scientists that have stated that time travel is a physical reality, that can be reproduced in the lab. Oh and Alex Chu doesn't count.
And Paul Feyerabend is full of shit. You don't have to go through the "evil system" to do science. If a 12 year old Amish kid discovered the TOE and it was verifiable, then no one would give a shit what training he had. The only votes are experiment and experiment.
You can try to argue that objective=shared subjective, you can philosophize all you want, but science is the simplest form of truth that there is - science is merely observation and little bit of thinking.
Seriously, though, it doesn't matter how bad the damage is, if you do something clearly unintended and dangerous with a product, YOU ARE STILL AN IDIOT.
dude, she had to have a skin graft around her vagina
I bet you wish they still manufactured lawn darts and baby toys composed entirely of small plastic parts.
Many people in India speak English, it was a colony. It is easily one of the two most common languages there. In the future it may become the most common language for various reasons. There are hundreds to thousands of languages in India, but only two really common languages - hindi and English. But hindi is only spoken in India, so many people are putting more emphasis in learning English as it is a universal language.
just how far can you see son?
By that interpretation the whole theory of evolution would fit inside the creation story. And if you get hung up on the 7 days thing, Jesus himself later says "A day is but a 1000 years to God" (sorry I couldn't find the ref) saying that God is not bound by time, which leads me to believe that the 7 days is a metaphor to put the vast amount of time for creation into terms (especially ancient) humans could understand.
If God is traveling arbitrarily close to the speed of light from the Earth's reference frame, then each day can be arbitrarily long.
And thus special relativity saves the fundamentalist God just as swift as it destroyed Santa Claus.
I think perhaps you and many other people have a confused opinion on the role of science and religion. I think I can clear this up.
1) (some) Christians take a very stupid stance against science that makes them look stupid and be very vulnerable to attack
2) The people who hate Christianity want to attack it, evolution gives them ammunition
3) Some scientists hate Christianity
If there is ever a scientist that it is a scientific truth that God does or does not exist, then he should have his title taken away - or be the next messiah.
Perhaps if many Christians kept up an onslaught against the Telitubbies, then there would be a great wave of Telitubbie attacks upon religion. And people would conclude that fans of PBS hate religion.
and Maxima is a possible replacement for Mathematica. It is actually much better at somethings and much worse at others. The old maintainer died and it is apparent that he had everything in a hacked together state. If the new maintainers clean it up, it could upsurp Mathematica in usefulness within 5 years or so.
http://maxima.sourceforge.net/
What happens when I destroy all of population B. Then they are magically 2 distinct species.
I don't find that to be a very good definition.
As I refute some of your claims I just want to say one thing. I am tired of being nice to you people. You are all idiots and I am starting to not care if you ever understand anything. It is my last moral fiber that forces me to clean up the garbage that you have vomited here.
1) Natural selection is the core theory and has not changed at all. It is quite similar to the principles at work in "dog breeding". Though I can half see your point. But that is how science operates. Science starts with the dirt and works towards the truth, as opposed to religion where you start with the truth.
2) Evolution dictates that there are no super species in nature. If there were some species with incredible powers then that species would quickly exhaust all of its resources and then die out. As far as quality versus quantity - nature dictates that you can't have both, note elephants versus cockroaches.
3) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
4) If you were in physics or chemistry right now, I would give you a flat F. You have failed to state your domain and have only proved that you lack any understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. Closed systems tend towards disorder, and a species never is and never will be a closed system.
5) True, but if some Christians did place themselves in such a vulnerable position then the areligious would not have so much ammunition.
People such as your selves turn curious people away from the Church.
Christians are supposed to be representatives of Christ.
I'm sorry, but that is the worst example of logical thinking that I have heard in at least a week.
... NOT
<Allegory>
GR is an theory that explains gravity on the macroscopic level, but it does not work at the subatomic level
Scientists suggest that there should be some Quantum Gravity Theory
Quantum Gravity is not well agreed upon
Therefore GR is wrong
</Allegory>
This is very wrong
how about 29 reasons
1 .h tml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section
you must have been out of the loop for at least 60 years
Not into statistics or information theory are we?
If you don't like the books example, then use fermions. They have similar behavior.
I agree. I have a math and physics BS and over the 5 year course of attaining it I ended up taking 1 communications class, 3 english classes, 2 foreign language classes, 1 history, 1 sociology, 1 anthropology, 2 psychology, 3 philosophy, 1 music, 1 art, and who knows what else. That's 16 classes, so figure 48 semester credit hours.
My friend with a history major only needed one math at the precalculus level (and he took calculus in high school) and one sequence of lab science, which he took geology or whatever the cryp science is at our university.
I don't think everyone needs to be trained scientists. And I do not think that everyone has what it takes to get through an entire year of calculus without taking a hit to their GPA, but a liberal arts education is unbalanced.
Perhaps a good measure of how unbalanced the US education system is, is the general GRE scores. Scientists and engineers generally do exceptionally well in the logic and analytic, and moderatley well in the verbal. While english majors do average in the logic and analytic, but only slightly better than the scientists and engineers in the verbal. You would think that the differences in the two disciplines' specialties wrt each other would be the same, but they are not even close. The scientists scores come out much higher over all. This indicates that either our educational system is unbalanced or the GRE is.