On Oct 26, 8:14 am, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:00 am, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 8:35 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 25, 6:20 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Your comment on dark matter is another hilarious show of ignorance. I
> > > > would have said also the inability to read. But you know so little
> > > > about physics and scientific reasoning that you should not be expected
> > > > to understand anything at all written on either subject.
>
> > > Richard I'm quite accustomed to a flurry of insults why should you
> > > be any different! You just need a good excuse once and a while to
> > > vent your frustration, good for the old ticker, despite not knowing
> > > what you are talking about, and of course better reading and
> > > comprehension skill are in order here.
>
> > > >What I said was that the existence of dark matter was a consequence of
> > > > measurements and the accepted theories of gravity. By "consequence" I
> > > > mean a logical consequence. Measurements and the accepted theory imply
> > > > the existence of dark matter.
>
> > > I said dark matter is a fringe theory. Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> > > science.
>
> > > Amit Goswami, Ph. D. is professor emeritus in the theoretical physics
> > > department of the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon where he has
> > > served since 1968. He is a pioneer of the new paradigm of science
> > > called “science within consciousness”.
>
> > > Goswami is the author of the highly successful textbook Quantum
> > > Mechanics that is used in Universities throughout the world.
>
> > > > No, I don't have a PhD in quantum physics. You don't need a PhD in
> > > > quantum physics to understand the subject. What you need is training
> > > > in the appropriate mathematics, a few courses and the ability to read
> > > > critically. You have none of these. You have no concept of elementary
> > > > calculus, invented in the late 17th century.
>
> > > You are starting to sound like Larry pulling the Maths card...... how
> > > pathetic is that?
>
> > > >You think that when a your board gets stiffer, its tap tone goes down.
>
> > > Richard, lets keep Matanya's impotence ( erectile dysfunction)
> > > problems out of this conversation. Yours too for that matter.
>
> > > >It would be difficult to imagine someone with greater ignorance of elementary
> > > > physics than you.
>
> > > It's easy if you try.
>
> > > > Somewhere around 50 PhDs have worked for me at one time or another.
> > > > They have accepted my leadership in the technical areas we worked in.
> > > > Most have said they learned a lot from me.
>
> > > I've taught a few Phd's how to make a guitar...... so there!
>
> > > > > This said by a man with many preconceived opinions which feed into
> > > > > many erroneous self deluding conclusions.
>
> > > > Care to be specific?
>
> > > Yes, your heart felt _belief_ in the 911 conspiracy for starters.
>
> > I do not believe in any explanation the occurrences of 9/11/2001. I
> > view any "explanation" of it from a scientific perspective. That is to
> > say, I have a working hypothesis which is subject to revision upon
> > receipt of new facts. It is you who _believe_that the events of
> > 9/11/2001 were a false flag attack conducted by a US government
> > conspiracy in order to provoke a war with Iraq. You have said so on
> > many occasions. You imagine that I believe in some other explanation
> > simply because you are unable to imagine the attitude of suspended
> > belief or disbelief that one learns in a scientific discipline.
>
> > Here's a very simple example. For the last several years I have worked
> > with some of the planet's most complex and powerful radars. Each one
> > contains tens of thousands of electronic components, dozens of
> > computers, tens of millions of semiconductor junctions, plus other
> > specialized components such as vacuum tubes that put out megawatts
> > (that's millions of watts) of power. In such a complex mechanism,
> > something malfunctions at least once a month on average.
>
> > No one knows the entire radar in detail. But there is a person
> > responsible for each subsystem. Part of my job is to know how the
> > radar works at the highest level through the interaction of the
> > various subsystems. Over the years I have learned considerable detail,
> > but that's not my job. Part of my job is to recognize faults and to
> > isolate them. Usually it is enough to isolate the fault to a given
> > subsystem and turn the job over to the person responsible. But
> > sometimes I have to help isolate the problem down to a given
> > component. This is done by an application of the scientific method.
>
> > One formulates a theory and makes measurements which can either
> > falsify it, or tend to confirm it. Note that I say _tend_ to confirm
> > it. The radar is divided into successively smaller parts that contain
> > the fault, until you are willing to take the step of replacing a
> > component or subassembly with one that is known to work. If you have
> > reached the right conclusion, the radar is proven to work again by a
> > daylong exhaustive checkout process.
>
> > You cannot proceed on belief. If you do you will end up wasting
> > millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money and not find the fault.
> > You must proceed with total skepticism toward your own theory, willing
> > to revise it the moment measurements prove it to be false.
>
> > You often learn the most when your theory is falsified by the
> > measurements. You are forced to consider things from a new
> > perspective. This happens quite frequently.
>
> Thanks for the lesson in radar operations. I guess this proves
> without a doubt you are beyond reproach in all things known to man.
> Now if only you could read and understand what you read.
>
> > One of your major problems is that your beliefs are not falsifiable.
> > Someone posts that they forgot to turn off their cellphone, received a
> > call in the air and talked to the caller. Your responese:"You're
> > lying!" This response is not based on any actual knowledge of how
> > cellphones work. Do you know what Maxwell's equations are? Can you
> > solve electromagnetic wave propagation equations at the frequencies
> > where cellphones operate? By the way, what frequencies do cellphones
> > operate at? Can you tell us about the algorithms used to hand off
> > calls from cell to cell? The answer to all these questions is "no".
> > You have no idea how cellphones work. That is you utterly unable make
> > quantitative predictions that can be tested by measurement, nor can
> > you even understand quantitative discussions. You just believe what
> > sounds good to you.
>
> I think your problem here Richard is you just haven't studied the
> facts, not that the facts would have any effect on your _belief
> system_I've seen examples of that.
>
> Here one fact you probably didn't know about cell phones. The FBI
> states Ted Olsen never received a call from Barbara Olsen on the
> morning of 911 while she was allegedly on board AA77. This was
> painfully clear when later on Larry King Olsen gave conflicting
> accounts of his bogus story, I'd send you the video but you don't have
> a good connection.
>
>
>
> > The "authorities" you cite are not scientific. They are journalistic.
>
> That is a lie once again. I've cited professionals see here before
> you open your mouth again.http://patriotsquestion911.com/
> I've even quoted 911 commission members. Please comprehend what you
> read before openning your mouth good man.
>
> > You believe the ones that support your foregone conclusions, and quote
> > them as "authorities" against those who question your beliefs. In fact
> > you are utterly incapable of evaluating the validity of your
> > "authorities". Witness your swallowing of Balsamo's idiotic mishmash
> > pretending to "analyze" the flight path of American Airlines Flight 77
> > on the day of the Pentagon attack.
>
> Yes, in contrast you are a card carrying member of Clinger the
> clown's special comedy show, who contradicts himself on a daily
> basis.
>
> > You are the one who _believes_. I consider the possibilities. I do
> > consider it unlikely that an entire airplane, its passengers and crew
> > disappeared entirely from the near vicinity of the Pentagon while
> > something nobody saw damaged the building. I'll change my mind if
> > someone comes up with convincing evidence to the contrary. So far they
> > have not. But I don't _believe_ one way or the other. Since you have
> > no alternative, you will continue to believe whatever "authorities"
> > appeal to you for reasons unknown to the rest of us.
>
> Your mind is already made up no amount of evidence or information
> will change that I'm afraid.
The brief account of radar troubleshooting was not to establish my
credentials. It was to give a short concrete account of an application
of the scientific method. You misconstrued it as usual, having missed
the words "here's a very simple example". This is typical. You misread
something, then start shooting from the hip at some imagined target.
You argue ad hominem or from authority.
When I reflect upon the years of education and experience it takes to
train someone in the scientific method, I realize that it is useless
to discuss the subject with you. Your idea of debate is, "My Daddy can
whip your Daddy." In scientific debate authority has nothing to do
with it. Facts and logic are the determining factors.
Science describes experimental results, or deductions from existing
theories or proposes new theories. The articles you cite are
journalistic accounts, or the opinions of people who may or may not be
scientists. They do not analyze the logical development of scientific
ideas, nor give details of data and analyses, nor describe scientific
theories in enough detail to be scientific. You don't know the
difference because you can't read scientific papers.
My mind is not made up about the events of 9/11/2001. I have
opinions, but they are not beliefs. I have questioned obvious idiocies
and misstatements of fact. But I am quite aware that the picture I
hold of the events is falsifiable. You don't know what falsifiable
means since you do not admit any facts at odds with your beliefs.
As I said, you cannot conceive of someone not having cobbled together
a belief system. You don't understand the idea of a scientific theory,
whose validity may range from "supported by some evidence" to "as
close as we ever get to truth in the physical world".
So you project your own mental state upon others. You are imprisoned
in a medieval mind.
RNJ