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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422946 > unrolled thread

Scientific method and its applications

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

Contents

  Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-18 22:59 -0700
    Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:00 +0000
      Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-19 06:32 -0700
        Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 22:38 +0000
          Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-19 18:37 -0700
          Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-19 23:43 -0700
            Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 03:14 -0700
              Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 03:51 -0700
                Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 11:09 +0000
                  Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 04:40 -0700
                    Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 14:40 +0000
                  Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-20 07:33 -0700
                Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 05:22 -0700
                  Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 05:30 -0700
                  Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 08:23 -0500
                    Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 06:35 -0700
                      Re: Scientific method and its applications Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:39 +0000
                        Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 06:45 -0700
                      Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 14:40 +0000
                        Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 09:14 -0700
                          Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 10:27 -0700
                            Re: Scientific method and its applications Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 17:32 +0000
                            Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 11:35 -0700
                              Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 05:03 -0700
                                Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 05:32 -0700
                                  Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 11:28 -0700
                                    Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 23:33 -0700
                            Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 11:12 -0500
                              Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-21 09:45 -0700
                                Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 05:07 -0700
                              Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 05:07 -0700
                                Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 15:32 -0500
                                  Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-22 15:38 -0700
                                    Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-22 15:40 -0700
                                  Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 23:34 -0700
                          Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 16:56 +0000
                            Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-21 10:20 -0700
                            Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-21 10:36 -0700
                              Re: Scientific method and its applications benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-21 22:03 -0400
                                Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-21 23:12 -0700
                        Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 10:24 -0700
                          Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 11:12 -0500
                      Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 10:18 -0700
                    Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-20 07:38 -0700
                    Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 10:22 -0700
            Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 11:09 +0000
              Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 04:39 -0700
                Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 14:15 +0000
                  Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 08:50 -0700
                    Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 09:11 -0700
                Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-20 07:50 -0700
      Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 03:00 -0700
        Re: Scientific method and its applications Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:03 +0000
          Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-20 07:41 -0700
    Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-19 15:01 -0700
    Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-24 12:04 -0700
      Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-25 23:44 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#423157

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 4:40:30 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> On 6/20/17 7:22 AM, JanPB wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:51:38 PM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >>>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 12:14:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade
> >>>>>>>>>> (both others and  himself) that his moronic mumble
> >>>>>>>>>> is experimentally confirmed.
> >>>>>>>>>> The  method is very effective.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are
> >>>>>>>>> corrupt, then why are you here?
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption.
> >>>>>>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's
> >>>>>>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your
> >>>>>>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't
> >>>>>>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and
> >>>>>>>> common sense is still confirming them.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they?
> >>>>>>> What do they do?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism?
> >>>>>> How did Galileo falsify absolute movement?
> >>>>>> Do historians do much experiments?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> For centuries science worked: theoreticians
> >>>>>> made theories, and when common sense said
> >>>>>> "they are reliable" people relied on them.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> That works fine (up to a point(*))
> >>>> 
> >>>> Yeah. Up to a point when scientists get insane
> >>>> and start to believe they are holy cows that
> >>>> have to be believed whatever they say.
> >>>> (not all of them, of course - only physicists).
> >>> 
> >>> No, not that. This is a typical strawman argument. Reality is simply that
> >>> just like any other complicated subject (law, brain surgery, etc.) the
> >>> expectation is that in order to provide technical critiques that don't
> >>> immediately fall into the "not even wrong" category (like the one you
> >>> wrote above), a certain amount of knowledge of the subject is a prerequisite.
> >>> 
> >>> The issue we have with your posts (besides their weird language) is that
> >>> you make absolutely MONUMENTAL claims with nothing to back them up except
> >>> a few lines of high-school-level generalities here and there. (Nothing
> >>> wrong with high schools, BTW.) Literally a few lines. And there is simply
> >>> no way that kind of MONUMENTAL claim could be proved by simple juggling
> >>> of certain first principles like "common sense" or "models theory" within
> >>> the space of an ASCII Internet forum paragraph.
> >>> 
> >>> This sort of thing would be easily in the Nobel Prize range and, of course,
> >>> would have been done decades ago. People are not stupid.
> >>> 
> >>> --
> >>> Jan
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> It's simpler than that. Like a few of the cranks here who try to talk 
> >> physics without having read anything on the subject, Maciej Wozniak 
> > 
> > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can a moron do.
> > 
> 
> I think spitting is pretty much all you do here, Maciej. So what's the goal
> of that?
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ego trip. Since only children get satisfaction from that sort of thing, my
guess is he has some emotional complication.

--
Jan

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

#423192

On 6/20/17 12:24 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 4:40:30 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

>>> Rave, moron, and spit. What else can a moron do.
>>>
>>
>> I think spitting is pretty much all you do here, Maciej. So what's the goal
>> of that?
>>
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> Ego trip. Since only children get satisfaction from that sort of thing, my
> guess is he has some emotional complication.
> 
> --
> Jan
> 

Oh, I think it's more than a guess. It's pretty obvious how angry he is. 
For what, he's not saying. Or at least, not being open about.


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#423155

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 3:35:40 PM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > On 6/20/17 7:22 AM, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:51:38 PM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > >> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 12:14:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > >>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > >>>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > >>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > >>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > >>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade
> > >>>>>>>> (both others and  himself) that his moronic mumble
> > >>>>>>>> is experimentally confirmed.
> > >>>>>>>> The  method is very effective.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are
> > >>>>>>> corrupt, then why are you here?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption.
> > >>>>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's
> > >>>>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your
> > >>>>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't
> > >>>>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and
> > >>>>>> common sense is still confirming them.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they?
> > >>>>> What do they do?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism?
> > >>>> How did Galileo falsify absolute movement?
> > >>>> Do historians do much experiments?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> For centuries science worked: theoreticians
> > >>>> made theories, and when common sense said
> > >>>> "they are reliable" people relied on them.
> > >>>
> > >>> That works fine (up to a point(*))
> > >>
> > >> Yeah. Up to a point when scientists get insane
> > >> and start to believe they are holy cows that
> > >> have to be believed whatever they say.
> > >> (not all of them, of course - only physicists).
> > > 
> > > No, not that. This is a typical strawman argument. Reality is simply that
> > > just like any other complicated subject (law, brain surgery, etc.) the
> > > expectation is that in order to provide technical critiques that don't
> > > immediately fall into the "not even wrong" category (like the one you
> > > wrote above), a certain amount of knowledge of the subject is a prerequisite.
> > > 
> > > The issue we have with your posts (besides their weird language) is that
> > > you make absolutely MONUMENTAL claims with nothing to back them up except
> > > a few lines of high-school-level generalities here and there. (Nothing
> > > wrong with high schools, BTW.) Literally a few lines. And there is simply
> > > no way that kind of MONUMENTAL claim could be proved by simple juggling
> > > of certain first principles like "common sense" or "models theory" within
> > > the space of an ASCII Internet forum paragraph.
> > > 
> > > This sort of thing would be easily in the Nobel Prize range and, of course,
> > > would have been done decades ago. People are not stupid.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > > 
> > 
> > It's simpler than that. Like a few of the cranks here who try to talk 
> > physics without having read anything on the subject, Maciej Wozniak 
> 
> Rave, moron, and spit. What else can a moron do.

Well, apparently all you can do OTOH is write "Rave, moron, and spit. What
else can a moron do". Do you think you are getting anywhere with any of this?

--
Jan

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

#423121

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> On 6/20/17 7:22 AM, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:51:38 PM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 12:14:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >>>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade
> >>>>>>>> (both others and  himself) that his moronic mumble
> >>>>>>>> is experimentally confirmed.
> >>>>>>>> The  method is very effective.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are
> >>>>>>> corrupt, then why are you here?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption.
> >>>>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's
> >>>>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your
> >>>>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't
> >>>>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and
> >>>>>> common sense is still confirming them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they?
> >>>>> What do they do?
> >>>>
> >>>> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism?
> >>>> How did Galileo falsify absolute movement?
> >>>> Do historians do much experiments?
> >>>>
> >>>> For centuries science worked: theoreticians
> >>>> made theories, and when common sense said
> >>>> "they are reliable" people relied on them.
> >>>
> >>> That works fine (up to a point(*))
> >>
> >> Yeah. Up to a point when scientists get insane
> >> and start to believe they are holy cows that
> >> have to be believed whatever they say.
> >> (not all of them, of course - only physicists).
> >
> > No, not that. This is a typical strawman argument. Reality is simply that
> > just like any other complicated subject (law, brain surgery, etc.) the
> > expectation is that in order to provide technical critiques that don't
> > immediately fall into the "not even wrong" category (like the one you
> > wrote above), a certain amount of knowledge of the subject is a prerequisite.
> >
> > The issue we have with your posts (besides their weird language) is that
> > you make absolutely MONUMENTAL claims with nothing to back them up except
> > a few lines of high-school-level generalities here and there. (Nothing
> > wrong with high schools, BTW.) Literally a few lines. And there is simply
> > no way that kind of MONUMENTAL claim could be proved by simple juggling
> > of certain first principles like "common sense" or "models theory" within
> > the space of an ASCII Internet forum paragraph.
> >
> > This sort of thing would be easily in the Nobel Prize range and, of course,
> > would have been done decades ago. People are not stupid.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> >
> 
> It's simpler than that. Like a few of the cranks here who try to talk
> physics without having read anything on the subject, Maciej Wozniak
> rejects the expectation of training to understanding. Like the others,
> the desire is that clear thinking and a little intelligence will reveal
> all that is important in ANY subject. This is the plea of the arrogant
> everyman who despises the status of expertise as an intolerable elitism.
> 
> And so he earnestly believes that physics (or ANY subject desired)
> should be accessible merely through application of common sense, and he
> MISTAKENLY believes that this is how great leaps in science have been
> done in the past. The opposite is in fact true -- the great leaps of
> science came from observations that completely confounded common sense,



That's a lie. The great leaps of
science came from observations that completely confounded..."established
truth".

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

#423156

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 3:23:43 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> Maciej rejects this in entirety, spewing that if confirmations of 
> predictions of counter-intuitive explanations came from experiment, then 
> the experiments are tainted and should not be regarded seriously, and 
> that ONLY observations that are consistent with common-sense 
> explanations should be called valid.

And this is very close to scholasticism of the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance. All you have to do is replace the words "common sense" with
"God" and reject the evidence contrary to experiments as they did with 
Galileo's telescope.

--
Jan

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

#423076

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade
>>>>> (both others and  himself) that his moronic mumble
>>>>> is experimentally confirmed.
>>>>> The  method is very effective.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are
>>>> corrupt, then why are you here?
>>> 
>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption.
>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's
>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your
>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't
>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and
>>> common sense is still confirming them.
>>> 
>> 
>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked?
> 
> 
>> 
>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they?
>> What do they do?
> 
> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism?

He didn't.  He proposed an alternate account, which didn't get a lot of
attention until Kepler showed it could make quantitative predictions. And
then Galileo showed bodies that orbited Jupiter, an observation that was
inconsistent with egocentrism.  That's an example of defying common sense
with the scientific method. 

> How did Galileo falsify absolute movement?

With observations of experiments with inclined planes that were
inconsistent with Aristotle's notion of rest being the natural star of
things, and which pointed to conservation of momentum, a very
non-common-sense idea. This is another example of defying common sense with
the scientific method. 

> Do historians do much experiments?
> 
> For centuries science worked: theoreticians
> made theories, and when common sense said 
> "they are reliable" people relied on them.

No, it was experiments that ran counter to common sense that drove these
ideas. You have lost your grip on the history here. 

> 
> Of course, common sense would never say
> such thing for your Shit. Even your
> idiot guru had no doubts, so he announced 
> common sense a colllection of prejudices. 
> And, as you urgently needed a philosophy 
> saying that your Shit is worthy - the
> "scientific method" arose. A simple story.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#423081

W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 13:09:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade
> >>>>> (both others and  himself) that his moronic mumble
> >>>>> is experimentally confirmed.
> >>>>> The  method is very effective.
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are
> >>>> corrupt, then why are you here?
> >>> 
> >>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption.
> >>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's
> >>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your
> >>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't
> >>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and
> >>> common sense is still confirming them.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked?
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they?
> >> What do they do?
> > 
> > How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism?
> 
> He didn't.

That's right, poor idiot. According to
"scientific method" of yours ha had no reason
to say what he said.

> > How did Galileo falsify absolute movement?
> 
> With observations of experiments with inclined planes that were
> inconsistent with Aristotle's notion of rest being the natural star of
> things

I'm asking how he falsified absolute motion
concept, not "rest being the natural state of
things" concept.


And - do historians do much experiments?


> > 
> > For centuries science worked: theoreticians
> > made theories, and when common sense said 
> > "they are reliable" people relied on them.
> 
> No, it was experiments that ran counter to common sense that drove these
> ideas. You have lost your grip on the history here. 

No, poor idiot, you did (assuming you ever had it,
what is rather doubtful). Fanatic idiots are never
good at history.

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

#423115

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 13:09:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade
>>>>>>> (both others and  himself) that his moronic mumble
>>>>>>> is experimentally confirmed.
>>>>>>> The  method is very effective.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are
>>>>>> corrupt, then why are you here?
>>>>> 
>>>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption.
>>>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's
>>>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your
>>>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't
>>>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and
>>>>> common sense is still confirming them.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they?
>>>> What do they do?
>>> 
>>> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism?
>> 
>> He didn't.
> 
> That's right, poor idiot. According to
> "scientific method" of yours ha had no reason
> to say what he said.

In a way, you're right. Copernicus did not use the scientific method to
make the proposal he did, nor were his arguments scientifically compelling.
Nor did his arguments convince many. That egocentrism was false. See Brahe,
for example. What DID turn the tide was in fact science, in the hands of
Kepler, Galileo, Newton. 

> 
>>> How did Galileo falsify absolute movement?
>> 
>> With observations of experiments with inclined planes that were
>> inconsistent with Aristotle's notion of rest being the natural star of
>> things
> 
> I'm asking how he falsified absolute motion
> concept, not "rest being the natural state of
> things" concept.

You don't see how those are connected? 

> 
> 
> And - do historians do much experiments?

No. Scientists do though. 

> 
> 
>>> 
>>> For centuries science worked: theoreticians
>>> made theories, and when common sense said 
>>> "they are reliable" people relied on them.
>> 
>> No, it was experiments that ran counter to common sense that drove these
>> ideas. You have lost your grip on the history here. 
> 
> No, poor idiot, you did (assuming you ever had it,
> what is rather doubtful). Fanatic idiots are never
> good at history.
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#423140

W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 16:15:19 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 13:09:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade
> >>>>>>> (both others and  himself) that his moronic mumble
> >>>>>>> is experimentally confirmed.
> >>>>>>> The  method is very effective.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are
> >>>>>> corrupt, then why are you here?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption.
> >>>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's
> >>>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your
> >>>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't
> >>>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and
> >>>>> common sense is still confirming them.
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked?
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they?
> >>>> What do they do?
> >>> 
> >>> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism?
> >> 
> >> He didn't.
> > 
> > That's right, poor idiot. According to
> > "scientific method" of yours ha had no reason
> > to say what he said.
> 
> In a way, you're right. Copernicus did not use the scientific method to
> make the proposal he did

Yes, I'am. He didn't.
Instead, your bunch of idiots used it to 
"prove" that your Shit is "confirmed"
by "experiments".
And this is the  only purpose it 
ever had.


> > I'm asking how he falsified absolute motion
> > concept, not "rest being the natural state of
> > things" concept.
> 
> You don't see how those are connected? 

No. I see they are independent. I'm a
professional.

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

#423142

W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 17:50:36 UTC+2 użytkownik mlwo...@wp.pl napisał:
> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 16:15:19 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 13:09:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > >>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade
> > >>>>>>> (both others and  himself) that his moronic mumble
> > >>>>>>> is experimentally confirmed.
> > >>>>>>> The  method is very effective.
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are
> > >>>>>> corrupt, then why are you here?
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption.
> > >>>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's
> > >>>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your
> > >>>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't
> > >>>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and
> > >>>>> common sense is still confirming them.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked?
> > >>> 
> > >>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they?
> > >>>> What do they do?
> > >>> 
> > >>> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism?
> > >> 
> > >> He didn't.
> > > 
> > > That's right, poor idiot. According to
> > > "scientific method" of yours ha had no reason
> > > to say what he said.
> > 
> > In a way, you're right. Copernicus did not use the scientific method to
> > make the proposal he did
> 
> Yes, I'am. He didn't.
> Instead, your bunch of idiots used it to 
> "prove" that your Shit is "confirmed"
> by "experiments".
> And this is the  only purpose it 
> ever had.
> 
> 
> > > I'm asking how he falsified absolute motion
> > > concept, not "rest being the natural state of
> > > things" concept.
> > 
> > You don't see how those are connected? 
> 
> No. I see they are independent. I'm a
> professional.

And a bit hasty. There is a dependence,
but one side only. second is dependent
on first. 

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

#423127

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> 
> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 13:09:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > >>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade
> > >>>>> (both others and  himself) that his moronic mumble
> > >>>>> is experimentally confirmed.
> > >>>>> The  method is very effective.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are
> > >>>> corrupt, then why are you here?
> > >>>
> > >>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption.
> > >>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's
> > >>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your
> > >>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't
> > >>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and
> > >>> common sense is still confirming them.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked?
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they?
> > >> What do they do?
> > >
> > > How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism?
> >
> > He didn't.
> 
> That's right, poor idiot. According to
> "scientific method" of yours ha had no reason
> to say what he said.
> 
> > > How did Galileo falsify absolute movement?
> >
> > With observations of experiments with inclined planes that were
> > inconsistent with Aristotle's notion of rest being the natural star of
> > things
> 
> I'm asking how he falsified absolute motion
> concept, not "rest being the natural state of
> things" concept.
> 
> And - do historians do much experiments?


"experiments"??? The Top Scientists don't use the scientific method or experiments, otherwise they wouldn't
get their billion dollar funding.


Top Scientists usually say...."We're almost there!" meaning...KEEP SENDING THE FUCKING MONEY!


If they were to use the scientific method, or "experiments"...they will lose all funding.


Scientific method, and "experiments" is just for kids in school. I thought yous people know this stuff?

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

#423068

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 3:00:36 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade
> > (both others and  himself) that his moronic mumble
> > is experimentally confirmed.
> > The  method is very effective.
> > 
> 
> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are
> corrupt, then why are you here?
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

It's a monomania, similar to Pentcho's. That's why he doesn't post to, say,
rec.music.classical telling everyone over there that Beethoven was an "idiot",
and so on. His hobbyhorse is physics, there are similar goofballs at sci.math.

--
Jan

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

#423089

JanPB wrote:

> It's a monomania, similar to Pentcho's. That's why he doesn't post to,
> say, rec.music.classical telling everyone over there that Beethoven was
> an "idiot", and so on. His hobbyhorse is physics, there are similar
> goofballs at sci.math.

wHAT'S a goofball, we don't know.

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

#423125

Eshiki Orakut wrote:
> 
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > It's a monomania, similar to Pentcho's. That's why he doesn't post to,
> > say, rec.music.classical telling everyone over there that Beethoven was
> > an "idiot", and so on. His hobbyhorse is physics, there are similar
> > goofballs at sci.math.
> 
> wHAT'S a goofball, we don't know.


goofballs are where all scientist are born from.


They start out as a goofball...and either get goofier or they seperate into other forms...mushy or distorted goof


it's too horible to think about.

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

#423049

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> 
> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade
> (both others and  himself) that his moronic mumble
> is experimentally confirmed.
> The  method is very effective.


You and everyone has to keep in mind...

that 'the scientific method' is ...just a theory.

It's actually called...'the theory of the scientific method'...

but the fact that it is just a theory is kept secret.

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

#423373

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> 
> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade
> (both others and  himself) that his moronic mumble
> is experimentally confirmed.
> The  method is very effective.



Why even bother with experiment and the scientific methods if
you believe your assumptions to be...true?

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

#423465

W dniu sobota, 24 czerwca 2017 21:04:47 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > 
> > A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade
> > (both others and  himself) that his moronic mumble
> > is experimentally confirmed.
> > The  method is very effective.
> 
> 
> 
> Why even bother with experiment and the scientific methods if
> you believe your assumptions to be...true?

There is surely no reason to bother with
"scientific method". But, anyway, true/false 
division is not what you think it is.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web