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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #361803 > unrolled thread

Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-25 16:07 +0000
    Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 18:23 +0200
      Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 11:44 -0500
      Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-25 19:31 +0000
        Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 21:50 +0200
          Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-25 20:09 +0000
            Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-25 15:55 -0500
              Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 10:45 +0200
                Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-27 10:44 -0500
                  Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 12:59 +0000
                    Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 15:18 +0200
                    Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 12:11 -0400
                      Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 18:21 +0200
                        Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 18:32 +0200
        Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 20:25 +0000
          Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-25 20:45 +0000
            Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-25 21:13 +0000
        Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 23:48 +0200
          Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 13:01 +0000
            Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 15:23 +0200
            Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 15:38 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#361803 — Re: Opinion | The Science of Monster Storms

gilber34 wrote:

>> Conjectures and guessings are part of science,
>> as first steps behind the known,
>> to shift the boundaries of unknown.
>>
>           problem here is, none of it is known to be fact, and the
> wording is vague innuendo, not scientific at all. Like most of the
> global worming articals that Wormley is c+p - ing
> 
> it is assumptions on top of guessing, models upon models, and when you
> dig down, you find the foundation is sand, no real facts.

You both are wrong. There are no guesses in Science. At most there are 
Qualified Guesses, but not much, or they HAVE to be based on rigurous 
Studies and Observations. 

There is not much Science in Speculations.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#361807

On 08/25/2015 06:07 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
> gilber34 wrote:
> 
>>> Conjectures and guessings are part of science,
>>> as first steps behind the known,
>>> to shift the boundaries of unknown.
>>>
>>           problem here is, none of it is known to be fact, and the
>> wording is vague innuendo, not scientific at all. Like most of the
>> global worming articals that Wormley is c+p - ing
>>
>> it is assumptions on top of guessing, models upon models, and when you
>> dig down, you find the foundation is sand, no real facts.
> 
> You both are wrong. There are no guesses in Science. At most there are 
> Qualified Guesses, but not much, or they HAVE to be based on rigurous 
> Studies and Observations. 
> 
> There is not much Science in Speculations.
> 

Not true.
Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory,
is often conjecture or guess.

WHAT IF ?? .....

Guess can be qualified even implicitly. :-)
Sometimes they could be characterized as (qualified) intuition,
but I suppose such a term is not used.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

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

#361809

On 8/25/2015 11:23 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> On 08/25/2015 06:07 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
>> gilber34 wrote:
>>
>>>> Conjectures and guessings are part of science,
>>>> as first steps behind the known,
>>>> to shift the boundaries of unknown.
>>>>
>>>            problem here is, none of it is known to be fact, and the
>>> wording is vague innuendo, not scientific at all. Like most of the
>>> global worming articals that Wormley is c+p - ing

>>> it is assumptions on top of guessing, models upon models, and when you
>>> dig down, you find the foundation is sand, no real facts.
>>
>> You both are wrong. There are no guesses in Science. At most there are
>> Qualified Guesses, but not much, or they HAVE to be based on rigurous
>> Studies and Observations.

>> There is not much Science in Speculations.
>>
>
> Not true.
> Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory,
> is often conjecture or guess.

> WHAT IF ?? .....
>
> Guess can be qualified even implicitly. :-)
> Sometimes they could be characterized as (qualified) intuition,
> but I suppose such a term is not used.
>

REM scientific method...  assume, test, hypothisis testing, etc....

I dont see that in most all of the GW articals, just model malipations

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

#361826

Poutnik wrote:

>> You both are wrong. There are no guesses in Science. At most there are
>> Qualified Guesses, but not much, or they HAVE to be based on rigurous
>> Studies and Observations.
>> 
>> There is not much Science in Speculations.
>> 
> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory,
> is often conjecture or guess.

Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in Science.

> WHAT IF ?? .... Guess can be qualified even implicitly. :-)
> Sometimes they could be characterized as (qualified) intuition,
> but I suppose such a term is not used.

No, Put, no. I see you never read Science. You must be believing in the 
Divergent Matter Model as well.

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

#361830

Dne 25/08/2015 v 21:31 Margarita Cibulkova napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>> You both are wrong. There are no guesses in Science. At most there are
>>> Qualified Guesses, but not much, or they HAVE to be based on rigurous
>>> Studies and Observations.
>>>
>>> There is not much Science in Speculations.
>>>
>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory,
>> is often conjecture or guess.
> 
> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in Science.

Neither a finger is a person. Just a part of a person.

BTW, are you not able to reproduce the nicknam properly,
or are you so socially limited
doing it intentionally on purpose ?

You are an obvious nymshifter,
as women have better things to do.

>> WHAT IF ?? .... Guess can be qualified even implicitly. :-)
>> Sometimes they could be characterized as (qualified) intuition,
>> but I suppose such a term is not used.
> 
> No, Put, no. I see you never read Science. You must be believing in the 
> Divergent Matter Model as well.

Naive and stupid trolling attempt.
Next time try something more sophisticated.

I am a graduated chemist.

Ask DMM author himself, if I am follower of opponent of his idea.


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble,
but small men arrogant.

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

#361832

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 25/08/2015 v 21:31 Margarita Cibulkova napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>> 
>>>> You both are wrong. There are no guesses in Science. At most there
>>>> are Qualified Guesses, but not much, or they HAVE to be based on
>>>> rigurous Studies and Observations.
>>>>
>>>> There is not much Science in Speculations.
>>>>
>>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory,
>>> is often conjecture or guess.
>> 
>> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in
>> Science.
> 
> Neither a finger is a person. Just a part of a person.
> BTW, are you not able to reproduce the nicknam properly,
> or are you so socially limited doing it intentionally on purpose ?

BTW what? Ohh sorry, Pout.

> You are an obvious nymshifter, as women have better things to do.

I'm actually cooking right now. Good guess, Pout.

>> No, Put, no. I see you never read Science. You must be believing in the
>> Divergent Matter Model as well.
> 
> Naive and stupid trolling attempt.
> Next time try something more sophisticated.

Stupid you say, Pout? Did you ever read guesses in scientific papers, 
Pout? Who is the stupid now, Pout?

> Ask DMM author himself, if I am follower of opponent of his idea.

What do you mean by "author", there are no authors. Authors to what, Pout, 
are you with me?

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

#361838

On 8/25/2015 3:09 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Dne 25/08/2015 v 21:31 Margarita Cibulkova napsal(a):
>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You both are wrong. There are no guesses in Science. At most there
>>>>> are Qualified Guesses, but not much, or they HAVE to be based on
>>>>> rigurous Studies and Observations.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is not much Science in Speculations.

>>>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory,
>>>> is often conjecture or guess.
>>>
>>> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in
>>> Science.
>>
>> Neither a finger is a person. Just a part of a person.
>> BTW, are you not able to reproduce the nicknam properly,
>> or are you so socially limited doing it intentionally on purpose ?
>
> BTW what? Ohh sorry, Pout.

it is Pout-nik

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

#361885

On 08/25/2015 10:55 PM, gilber34 wrote:
> On 8/25/2015 3:09 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
>>
>> BTW what? Ohh sorry, Pout.
> 
> it is Pout-nik
> 

Never mind.

Conversation with anyone, who intentionally corrupt name
to provoke or insult, is waste of time.

I have just pity for such persons.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

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

#361994

On 8/26/2015 3:45 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> On 08/25/2015 10:55 PM, gilber34 wrote:
>> On 8/25/2015 3:09 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW what? Ohh sorry, Pout.
>>
>> it is Pout-nik
>>
>
> Never mind.
>
> Conversation with anyone, who intentionally corrupt name
> to provoke or insult, is waste of time.
>
> I have just pity for such persons.
>

its ok with me, you can call me gilber-34-ish or gilber-nik, no problem. 
I never use a real name on internet.

If you have a real name, others have a high probability of finding out 
where they live if you own real property, as those records are public in 
the USA.

then one can use google maps to see the front of the house, and the roof 
and yard. etc.

its the internet age, I think Europe restricts Google somewhat.

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

#362078

gilber34 wrote:

> On 8/26/2015 3:45 AM, Poutnik wrote:
>> On 08/25/2015 10:55 PM, gilber34 wrote:
>>> On 8/25/2015 3:09 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
>>>>
>>>> BTW what? Ohh sorry, Pout.
>>>
>>> it is Pout-nik
>>>
>> Never mind.
>>
>> Conversation with anyone, who intentionally corrupt name to provoke or
>> insult, is waste of time. I have just pity for such persons.
>>
> its ok with me, you can call me gilber-34-ish or gilber-nik, no problem.
> I never use a real name on internet.

Nevermind. Pout is just stupid from time to time. 

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

#362084

On 08/28/2015 02:59 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
> gilber34 wrote:
> 
>> On 8/26/2015 3:45 AM, Poutnik wrote:
>>> On 08/25/2015 10:55 PM, gilber34 wrote:
>>>> On 8/25/2015 3:09 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW what? Ohh sorry, Pout.
>>>>
>>>> it is Pout-nik
>>>>
>>> Never mind.
>>>
>>> Conversation with anyone, who intentionally corrupt name to provoke or
>>> insult, is waste of time. I have just pity for such persons.
>>>
>> its ok with me, you can call me gilber-34-ish or gilber-nik, no problem.
>> I never use a real name on internet.
> 
> Nevermind. Pout is just stupid from time to time. 

While Mz Onion is clever from time to time.

Some ideas froze in idea state, being useless,
and some other, being fruiful, have been developed
into current theories.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

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

#362100

On 08/28/2015 08:59 AM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
> gilber34 wrote:
>
>> On 8/26/2015 3:45 AM, Poutnik wrote:
>>> On 08/25/2015 10:55 PM, gilber34 wrote:
>>>> On 8/25/2015 3:09 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW what? Ohh sorry, Pout.
>>>>
>>>> it is Pout-nik
>>>>
>>> Never mind.
>>>
>>> Conversation with anyone, who intentionally corrupt name to provoke or
>>> insult, is waste of time. I have just pity for such persons.
>>>
>> its ok with me, you can call me gilber-34-ish or gilber-nik, no problem.
>> I never use a real name on internet.
>
> Nevermind. Pout is just stupid from time to time.

The real rule, Pouter, is that anyone not using their real name on 
Internet can safely be ignored as ignorant and a troll-kook. (as well as 
cowards)

Of course Using your real name (Sam Wormley) doesn't automatically make 
you knowledgeable and correct either, but at least one can debate the 
issue with facts like adults.



-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

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

#362101

On 08/28/2015 06:11 PM, benj wrote:
> 
> The real rule, Pouter, is that anyone not using their real name on 
> Internet can safely be ignored as ignorant and a troll-kook. (as well as 
> cowards)
> 
> Of course Using your real name (Sam Wormley) doesn't automatically make 
> you knowledgeable and correct either, but at least one can debate the 
> issue with facts like adults.
> 

First, you have to learn how to debate as an adult,
without calling names as 13-year-old teenager, as you are used to.

As there is no guarantee the used name is real name,
it is nothing more than a nickname with a real name form.

One could as well choose nickname "Margarita Cibulkova" as "BeefEater".

The name presented as real name
does not give higher credit than nickname,
especially if it is real nickname/penname as mine.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

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

#362102

On 08/28/2015 06:21 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> 
> The name presented as real name
> does not give higher credit than nickname,
> especially if it is real nickname/penname as mine.
> 
P.S.:
Many Usenet nymshifters change their "real name" every few days.

I use my nickname on internet for about 20 years,
since internet became publicly available in my country.

I do not see reason why I should change it.

In real life, some of my friends even know me better
under my nickname than real name.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

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

#361835

In sci.physics Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>> You both are wrong. There are no guesses in Science. At most there are
>>> Qualified Guesses, but not much, or they HAVE to be based on rigurous
>>> Studies and Observations.
>>> 
>>> There is not much Science in Speculations.
>>> 
>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory,
>> is often conjecture or guess.
> 
> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in Science.

One dead dead give away for a kook is capitalizing things that should
not be capitalized, kook.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#361836

jimp wrote:

> In sci.physics Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> wrote:
>> Poutnik wrote:
>> 
>>>> You both are wrong. There are no guesses in Science. At most there
>>>> are Qualified Guesses, but not much, or they HAVE to be based on
>>>> rigurous Studies and Observations.
>>>> 
>>>> There is not much Science in Speculations.
>>>> 
>>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory,
>>> is often conjecture or guess.
>> 
>> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in
>> Science.
> 
> One dead dead give away for a kook is capitalizing things that should
> not be capitalized, kook.

No, jimp, it's just you, batshit crazy, weak in Science, Weak in Math and 
English. Those things has to be "capitalized" taken as domain of 
significant interest, with significant importance in that particular 
context.  

Consequently, jimp, you are babbling nonsense, as "Science" cannot be the 
same as "science". You just angry you are stupid, loosing arguments. Go 
talk somewhere else. Modern Science and Engineering is NOT you.

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

#361842

In sci.physics Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> wrote:
> jimp wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> wrote:
>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> You both are wrong. There are no guesses in Science. At most there
>>>>> are Qualified Guesses, but not much, or they HAVE to be based on
>>>>> rigurous Studies and Observations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is not much Science in Speculations.
>>>>> 
>>>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory,
>>>> is often conjecture or guess.
>>> 
>>> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in
>>> Science.
>> 
>> One dead dead give away for a kook is capitalizing things that should
>> not be capitalized, kook.
> 
> No, jimp, it's just you, batshit crazy, weak in Science, Weak in Math and 
> English. Those things has to be "capitalized" taken as domain of 
> significant interest, with significant importance in that particular 
> context.  

One dead dead give away for a kook is capitalizing things that should
not be capitalized, kook.

BTW, what is your first language, as it certainly can not be English, kook.


<snip remaining kook babble>

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#361844

Dne 25/08/2015 v 21:31 Margarita Cibulkova napsal(a):
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory,
>> is often conjecture or guess.
> 
> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in Science.
> 
>> WHAT IF ?? .... Guess can be qualified even implicitly. :-)
>> Sometimes they could be characterized as (qualified) intuition,
>> but I suppose such a term is not used.
> 
> No, Put, no. I see you never read Science. You must be believing in the 
> Divergent Matter Model as well.
> 

There is possibility of strong misunderstanding between us.

One thing is idea as hypothesis/theory starting point.
The other thing is just idea with self-confident statements.

Every scientific hypothesis and theory starts
with an idea, guess or conjecture.

But here their similarity with Divergent matter Model ends.

As DMM ends with the ideas,
while scientific theories just start with ideas.

For DMM is idea everything, while for science
idea is very important, but of not much value itself.

It must be later supported by math model,
has to pass internal logic and math consistency
and being confronted with known and future experimental results.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble,
but small men arrogant.

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

#362079

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 25/08/2015 v 21:31 Margarita Cibulkova napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>> 
>>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory, is
>>> often conjecture or guess.
>> 
>> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in
>> Science.
>> 
>>> WHAT IF ?? .... Guess can be qualified even implicitly.  Sometimes
>>> they could be characterized as (qualified) intuition,
>>> but I suppose such a term is not used.
>> 
>> No, Put, no. I see you never read Science. You must be believing in the
>> Divergent Matter Model as well.
>>  
> There is possibility of strong misunderstanding between us. 
> One thing is idea as hypothesis/theory starting point.
> The other thing is just idea with self-confident statements.

In other understandable words, you admit you've been blatantly stupid.

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

#362086

On 08/28/2015 03:01 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
> 
>> Dne 25/08/2015 v 21:31 Margarita Cibulkova napsal(a):
>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not true. Initial idea, leading to later hypothesis and theory, is
>>>> often conjecture or guess.
>>>
>>> Ideas are not Science, Put. If it were, we would be swimming in
>>> Science.
>>>
>>>> WHAT IF ?? .... Guess can be qualified even implicitly.  Sometimes
>>>> they could be characterized as (qualified) intuition,
>>>> but I suppose such a term is not used.
>>>
>>> No, Put, no. I see you never read Science. You must be believing in the
>>> Divergent Matter Model as well.
>>>  
>> There is possibility of strong misunderstanding between us. 
>> One thing is idea as hypothesis/theory starting point.
>> The other thing is just idea with self-confident statements.
> 
> In other understandable words, you admit you've been blatantly stupid.
> 

Our own words speak for us or against us, not words of others.
And your own words do not speak for you.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web