Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #659338 > unrolled thread

if physics is dead

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  if physics is dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-04 22:05 -0800
    Re: if physics is dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-04 22:47 -0800
      Re: if physics is dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-05 13:20 -0800
        Re: if physics is dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-07 10:03 -0800
          Re: if physics is dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-08 12:58 -0800
    Re: if physics is dead bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-06 15:43 +0000
      Re: if physics is dead The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-06 16:28 -0800

#659338 — if physics is dead

then engineering would be dead...

isn't that right?
-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#659339

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> then engineering would be dead...
> 
> isn't that right?

i mean, it appears to me
that someone here claims
physics is dead and
they happen to be in
engineering.

Obviously, they don't understand
the relation of physics to
engineering.







-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659352

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > then engineering would be dead...
> >
> > isn't that right?
> 
> i mean, it appears to me
> that someone here claims
> physics is dead and
> they happen to be in
> engineering.
> 
> Obviously, they don't understand
> the relation of physics to
> engineering.
> 


Here is one example...

the engineers send rocketships to space, and it blows up
because the engineers don't know the physics.


if something gets too cold, it stops working.





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659390

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > then engineering would be dead...
> > >
> > > isn't that right?
> >
> > i mean, it appears to me
> > that someone here claims
> > physics is dead and
> > they happen to be in
> > engineering.
> >
> > Obviously, they don't understand
> > the relation of physics to
> > engineering.
> >
> 
> Here is one example...
> 
> the engineers send rocketships to space, and it blows up
> because the engineers don't know the physics.
> 
> if something gets too cold, it stops working.
> 


Engineers live in one world...and Scientists live in another world.


Scientisits live in a world of...exaggeration, beyond the bounds of
truth.




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659419

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > then engineering would be dead...
> > > >
> > > > isn't that right?
> > >
> > > i mean, it appears to me
> > > that someone here claims
> > > physics is dead and
> > > they happen to be in
> > > engineering.
> > >
> > > Obviously, they don't understand
> > > the relation of physics to
> > > engineering.
> > >
> >
> > Here is one example...
> >
> > the engineers send rocketships to space, and it blows up
> > because the engineers don't know the physics.
> >
> > if something gets too cold, it stops working.
> >
> 
> Engineers live in one world...and Scientists live in another world.
> 
> Scientisits live in a world of...exaggeration, beyond the bounds of
> truth.

Even though there are decades old examples, let me give you a still
currect example on how things have not changed with Scientisits living in a world of...exaggeration, beyond 
the bounds of
truth.


In an interview on Friday, Camarda, an aerospace engineer who spent two decades working on 
thermal protection for the space shuttle and hypersonic vehicles, said NASA is relying on flawed probabilistic risk assessments and 
Monte Carlo simulations to determine the safety of Orion's existing heat shield.


https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/12/former-flight-director-who-reviewed-orion-heat-shield-data-says-there-was-no-dissent/


Go ahead, send another teacher up there....


(have you noticed when a rocket takes off all the scientists cover their mouths?)

they are hiding terror and grins like saying...what a sucker!

like kids cover their mouths when they see somebody aabout to fall for their traps...





Engineers are depended on Scientists always lying...


it pays the bills.


You ask an engineer "Is there Life on Mars?"

da engineer sez "Who the fuck knows."

You ask a Scinetists "Is there Life on Mars?"


da scientists sez   "Fuck Yeah!!! There are billions and billions of life on Mars and everywhere else! Oceans under the ground that contain life!!!"


and then he covers his mouth and sez, "But i ain't going up there in one of those washing machines."



FUCK THE HEAT SHIELDS!!!



Who gives a fuck about teachers and seven astronuts? 



Roll the dice!



 





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659364

On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 6:05:27 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> then engineering would be dead...

Engineering will survive wrong physics thanks to Arindam.
>
> isn't that right?

No. The death of wrong e=mcc=hv physics is eminently desirable and
absolutely necessary for stupendous engineering following Arindam's
physics.

Woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659376

Bertietaylor wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 6:05:27 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > then engineering would be dead...
> 
> Engineering will survive wrong physics thanks to Arindam.
> >
> > isn't that right?
> 
> No. The death of wrong e=mcc=hv physics is eminently desirable and
> absolutely necessary for stupendous engineering following Arindam's
> physics.
> 
> Woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
> 
> Bertietaylor

"Woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof"???? Son of Sam?


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web