[Les Cargill[_2_]]

RichL wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

you should also explain to this guy that at the land grant sort of
college I went to, you knew you were in the upper level classes when
a 34 on a test was a B. The test was four pages, front and back,
handwritten answers. In 50 minutes.

I'll have nightmares tonight at the memory.

Sorry! You are one of five people who would get this.

Ooops! four people.

But actually I did well, I
sort of lived and breathed physics, the same way I lived and breathed
playing music as a teenager. It became an obsession. It seems only the
obsessed survive it and flourish in it.


Right, and I will start a support group for the obesessison-deprived.
I am not sure there is a building big enough.

That's when I knew I wasn't a physicist. And it wasn't a *severe* sort
of physics program. I have a minor, which should be interpreted as
"holy cow, don't ask this guy anything about physics!"

Well, you probably know more than most folks do about it,

Yes. I got a fecking *B*, man, before I gave it up. A 34 on the
final, yo.

No, I really just found another obsession - indeterminacy.
Indeterminate forms are like...


and you
probably adopted a way of thinking that most folks don't experience,
either.



Yessir. And thanks to the people at "The Big Bang Theory" for giving
me the courage to admit it.

You really like me.

-
Les Cargilll

[Michael Press]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:55:37 -0800, Michael Press
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:09:35 -0500, "RichL"
wrote:

flipper wrote:

They told Einstein the same thing: dumb ass patent clerk 'disagreeing'
with all those 'scientists'. And the ratio was better than a paltry,
not to mention fabricated, '90%'

You got a citation for that statement?

http://home.pacbell.net/kidwell5/aebio.html

" At the time of the publication on the theory of relativity, the
people that read the papers met them with skepticism and ridicule. As
the other papers were published, they were viewed the same way. Since
these papers were so advanced, only a few physicists even understood
them, and they slowly started to realize what a true genius Einstein
actually was. "

Any contemporary quotations? Annalen der Physik published
five papers by Einstein in 1905, and that supports the
view that his work was taken seriously. I could not find
contemporary reactions to it.

I didn't say there was a 'no publish' conspiracy against him, that
tactic is apparently reserved for AGW fanatics, nor did I say 'no one'
was, at least, willing to consider it..

Einstein was criticized and/or attacked on a number of grounds, some
legitimate and some not (such as the NAZI "Jew science" propaganda)
but the salient point, which everyone wants to ignore, is that
Einstein's theories were eventually accepted on the basis of
falsifiable predictions and experimental observation of said
predictions, I.E. science, not 'it sounds good' and 'trust me' nor by
refusing to debate, destruction of raw data sets, secrecy, and ad
hominem against critics.

Contrary to the popular belief, Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't
unanimously accepted just because of one eclipse.

Here's a 1932 German article highlighting an ether drift experiment.

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/...n-ether-drift/

But where are the contemporary reactions?

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

It is beyond bunk. Einstein had lots of help, especially with knotty
mathematical problems.

Hence his famous quotation on the subject.

_Of_course_ Einstein worked off experiment, and the
results of others. We all do. There is a cottage
industry stuffing straw men and burning Einstein in
effigy. Einstein had an impeccable sense for physics.
That is why we respect him.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:48:07 -0800, Michael Press
wrote:

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

It is beyond bunk. Einstein had lots of help, especially with knotty
mathematical problems.

Hence his famous quotation on the subject.

_Of_course_ Einstein worked off experiment, and the
results of others. We all do. There is a cottage
industry stuffing straw men and burning Einstein in
effigy. Einstein had an impeccable sense for physics.
That is why we respect him.

Who is burning Einstein?

Everybody writing books and articles telling us how
he "stole" from others and took mathematical help
without credit.

--
Michael Press

[AMuzi]

* Still Just Me * wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:01:50 -0600, flipper wrote:

Yeah, OK, no problem... we'll pull two parallel planets up into orbit
next week and run some experiments with one as a control group.
First off, thanks for admitting that *you* don't believe there is
currently any experimental evidence of falsifiable predictions (or
else you would not be trying to 'excuse' the lack of it by arguing
it's 'impossible' to do).

Thanks for making up what I believe.

The point, you dimwitted, brainwashed, low IQ neo-con asswipe, is that
you and your ilk will never be satisfied until someone can prove that
a specific molecule of carbon released into the atmosphere caused a
specific change in global temperature.

Based on your standard of proof , I suggest you take up smoking.
There's no "proof" that smoking causes cancer. Likewise, you might
want to open a business storing uranium at your house with no lead
containers for transport or storage - there's no "proof" that
radiation causes problems in the human body.


Range is wide, not a simple question:
http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=24260

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Michael Press]

In article ,
* Still Just Me * wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:01:50 -0600, flipper wrote:

Yeah, OK, no problem... we'll pull two parallel planets up into orbit
next week and run some experiments with one as a control group.

First off, thanks for admitting that *you* don't believe there is
currently any experimental evidence of falsifiable predictions (or
else you would not be trying to 'excuse' the lack of it by arguing
it's 'impossible' to do).

Thanks for making up what I believe.

The point, you dimwitted, brainwashed, low IQ neo-con asswipe, is that
you and your ilk will never be satisfied until someone can prove that
a specific molecule of carbon released into the atmosphere caused a
specific change in global temperature.

Based on your standard of proof , I suggest you take up smoking.
There's no "proof" that smoking causes cancer. Likewise, you might
want to open a business storing uranium at your house with no lead
containers for transport or storage - there's no "proof" that
radiation causes problems in the human body.

You hear the most outrageous lies about radiation.
Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody
it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody
could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They
ought to have them, too. When they canceled the
project it almost did me in. One day my mind was
full to bursting. The next day--nothing. Swept away.
But I'll show them. I had a lobotomy in the end.

--
Michael Press

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Michael Press wrote:

I had a lobotomy in the end.

Explains so much.

eg

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
* Still Just Me * wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:01:50 -0600, flipper wrote:

Yeah, OK, no problem... we'll pull two parallel planets up into orbit
next week and run some experiments with one as a control group.
First off, thanks for admitting that *you* don't believe there is
currently any experimental evidence of falsifiable predictions (or
else you would not be trying to 'excuse' the lack of it by arguing
it's 'impossible' to do).
Thanks for making up what I believe.

The point, you dimwitted, brainwashed, low IQ neo-con asswipe, is that
you and your ilk will never be satisfied until someone can prove that
a specific molecule of carbon released into the atmosphere caused a
specific change in global temperature.

Based on your standard of proof , I suggest you take up smoking.
There's no "proof" that smoking causes cancer. Likewise, you might
want to open a business storing uranium at your house with no lead
containers for transport or storage - there's no "proof" that
radiation causes problems in the human body.

You hear the most outrageous lies about radiation.
Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody
it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody
could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They
ought to have them, too. When they canceled the
project it almost did me in. One day my mind was
full to bursting. The next day--nothing. Swept away.
But I'll show them. I had a lobotomy in the end.


But which end?

--
les cargill

[Michael Press]

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
* Still Just Me * wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:01:50 -0600, flipper wrote:

Yeah, OK, no problem... we'll pull two parallel planets up into orbit
next week and run some experiments with one as a control group.
First off, thanks for admitting that *you* don't believe there is
currently any experimental evidence of falsifiable predictions (or
else you would not be trying to 'excuse' the lack of it by arguing
it's 'impossible' to do).
Thanks for making up what I believe.

The point, you dimwitted, brainwashed, low IQ neo-con asswipe, is that
you and your ilk will never be satisfied until someone can prove that
a specific molecule of carbon released into the atmosphere caused a
specific change in global temperature.

Based on your standard of proof , I suggest you take up smoking.
There's no "proof" that smoking causes cancer. Likewise, you might
want to open a business storing uranium at your house with no lead
containers for transport or storage - there's no "proof" that
radiation causes problems in the human body.

You hear the most outrageous lies about radiation.
Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody
it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody
could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They
ought to have them, too. When they canceled the
project it almost did me in. One day my mind was
full to bursting. The next day--nothing. Swept away.
But I'll show them. I had a lobotomy in the end.


But which end?

Oh... You don't wanna look in there.

--
Michael Press

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

At least one GWA is calling for openness:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1458206/
(content within the opinion piece)

Bill "pssssssssssssssssss" S.

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Who was talking about "weather" versus "climate"?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-79834057.html