That's because the stuff that's totally fucking wrong or totally without evidential support is not even interesting, except to weirdos and idiots.

You forgot the Republican party ....of course the last exemplar might have covered it off.

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:That is about as dumb of a pedantic hissy fit as I have ever seen. Since you obviously know the reference, since you even corrected me on the properly authorized construction of the language, my point stands utterly unaltered except with your oddly emotional amendment tacked on. Since you do know the reference, you do understand my point. Why you feel the need to invent a problem is your karma so I won't worry about it but I'm glad that you in fact did understand my point, you just decided to randomly meltdown because of something I posted at some other time about something which was probably terrible since it permanently damaged your assessment of my character. Oh whatever shall I do? I guess there's nothing I can do with that much information.

Out of curiosity though, what is 'bend a spoon' a euphemism for?

Show your working. That's what it's a euphemism for. Not much need for a euphemism, is there? A metaphor, perhaps? Hence, it is not a euphemism, so back to the drawing board for you again, genius.

Does that make sense what you wrote there? Jeeze. I post a totally innocuous post about how unanswered questions that we think of as being answered can turn up surprising new information when investigated and linked a book about just that subject, and your head goes all asplody. I must have written a real doozy last time I was here for you to both remember me and to have that visceral of a reaction.

"Show your working" isn't a grammatically complete sentence in America at least. And it seems to go downhill from there. If you intended it to mean, "show your work", then it would help if you could explain why you would write that because it makes no sense here. If 'bend a spoon' is a metaphor for 'show your work' then why did you write it? How was it in any way relevant? I'm willing to accept the most tenuous of connections here.

Did I say something that left out a logical step? Do you have some sort of disagreement with me that I have forgotten? I could pick it back up and let you correct my faulty thinking if that would make you feel better.

And also, How the fuck did "stuff that's wrong or without evidential support" get in there? Were you just randomly thinking it and decided to type it out?

BWE wrote:And also, How the fuck did "stuff that's wrong or without evidential support" get in there? Were you just randomly thinking it and decided to type it out?

Okay, let's go back to this then:

BWE wrote:There are all sorts of measurements that we ignore because we know they are a little wrong and hardly ever stop to wonder if maybe there might be a better model. That's what makes science interesting - the stuff that isn't quite right.

What's a model, BWE? Because that's the only thing you have 'wrong' to compare to. Measurements typically are not 'wrong' unless the instrument is broken. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and that's why I remember you from last time. Perhaps what you mean to say is that there's a discrepancy with the model. So we change the model. Since the measurements are what they are, when does a 'model' turn out to be 'wrong'? You got it, bub: When it consists of pseudoscience.

Now, what were you on about with Brownian motion and the '4th state of water'? What was that going to be about? Don't just link a book. Let us know what you found so fascinating about it.

Lol. Yes, congratulations. You did understand what I wrote! It almost seemed like you didn't understand but you did it. I'm glad it wasn't on my end anyway.

As far as the book, he describes a series of experiments he has done involving the ordering of polarity in a crystal lattice fashion around hydrophilic surfaces and goes into quite a bit of detail about what it might mean. The energy used to create the polarity appears to be electromagnetic radiation in the infrared spectrum and into the visible light some. It creates a whole bunch of unexpected phenomena and explains some historically weird experimental results. One of the more far out possibilities is that it provides a mechanism for the effects we attribute to Brownian motion with potentially not just more accuracy but also accounting for some behavior which is currently poorly accounted for. If you are interested in the topic, I recommend the book. I didn't intend to summarize the book, just to note that it is an example of new models to explain anomalous data that we have grown accustomed to accepting despite being anomalous.

Also, models turn out to be wrong all the time. You seem like too bright of a guy to not understand the concept of improving or even wholesale replacing of models when better ones come along. The idea that all models are wrong has a specific meaning. Models necessarily involve lossy compression or else they are too unwieldy to be useful. Anyway, I'll have to educate you about models some other time because I have to go at the moment. Remind me the next time I'm here that I promised to teach you about models.

GrahamH: "are you trying to deny that your 1m thick quantity is entirely arbitrary"

Of course. That's why I said "let's pretend."

BWE. You can clearly think. Sorry to have missed you. Thank you for your contribution.

GrahamH: "Evidence?"

I have given links to the evidence several times. Is there some reason why you don't want to look at it?

Gareth wrote:GrahamH: "Evidence?"

I have given links to the evidence several times. Is there some reason why you don't want to look at it?

I must have missed the bit where you gave experimental data on air pressures over the surface of a wing. The data I have seen shows clearly that the greater effect is low pressure on top. You claim the increase under the wing is three times the depression on top. Please provide the data to back that up.

Gareth wrote:Some skeptics are proud of being too smart to believe anything at all and will happily argue that black is white. Others just like to tell the devout how dumb they are.

I'm hoping to find some real skeptics on RatSkep -- people who like to think about stuff and reach rational conclusions.
What are my chances?

I consider myself to be a rational thinker on eye biology and most physics, though not on things in general, which is way to broad a subject to be well informed on, IMO. In fact, I was the first person ever to post the hypothesis that the vertebrate eye was "designed" by natural selection to have a long life, by maintaining its visual opsins against photo-oxidative damage. Also, the first to post a cosmology that does not require that the big bang was "nothing, which then exploded", as some put it.

...
Would a person like me be welcome here?

I'm sure they would (provided they don't go on too much about c being the speed limit of the universe! )

PS, I'm quite modest, really, once you get to know me!

Hi, D McC

I'm with you on the speed of light. I've seen several experiments in New Scientist where people have sent information faster than light with ordinary lab equipment..

Any idea how the opsins are preserved/protected? I've had one cataract op, so I'm interested. Seems to me the lens was 'poached' by uv light. I think I remember seeing the flash of sunlight off a car windscreen that did it. I have no evidence to support this however.

There doesn't seem to be much hard evidence as such for the big bang. It was the Vatican that first proposed that idea, apparently. Plenty of room for other possible explanations, though I haven't come up with any myself.

Gareth wrote:Hi, D McC

I'm with you on the speed of light. I've seen several experiments in New Scientist where people have sent information faster than light with ordinary lab equipment..

Really? I'm thinking you might have misunderstood what those reports said or the journalist might have misinterpreted the publication. I am happy to stand corrected, but that sounds like the sort of thing that would have crossed my path.

I don't know if this is useful ...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/ ... H-2102.pdf

But it certainly contains evidence.

Fair enough. I can't refer you to any of the editions in question. NS has also reported observations though of two objects in space moving away from each other at more than twice the speed of light, so, at least one of them must be moving FTL.
Similarly, objects thought to be black holes have been observed to be spewing out trillions of tons of matter from opposite end at close to the speed of light, so, relative to each other, the stuff is moving FTL.

I could find that last one online I think if it helps.

Gareth wrote: so, relative to each other, the stuff is moving FTL.

I could find that last one online I think if it helps.

Relative to each other, they won't.

Yes, a source would be nice.

Thanks romansh. I had a look, and if you read the section called Wing-Pressure Orifices you'll see that they used the same flawed methodology used in the original experiment that I mentioned in the first place i.e using open ended orifices. Have none of these people ever heard of Venturi?

So, yes. That was very useful indeed. Thank you.

[Relative to each other, they won't.]

Don't understand this, sorry, but I will try to find a couple of references for you. Tomorrow okay?

Gareth wrote:[Relative to each other, they won't.]

Don't understand this, sorry, but I will try to find a couple of references for you. Tomorrow okay?

Objects don't move faster than light.

Yes, tomorrow'a ok.

Gareth wrote:Fair enough. I can't refer you to any of the editions in question. NS has also reported observations though of two objects in space moving away from each other at more than twice the speed of light, so, at least one of them must be moving FTL.
Similarly, objects thought to be black holes have been observed to be spewing out trillions of tons of matter from opposite end at close to the speed of light, so, relative to each other, the stuff is moving FTL.

I could find that last one online I think if it helps.

Ahh. That's not how I normally look at relativistic reference frames but now I understand what you meant. Light never goes faster than light relative to any individual reference frame is how it is normally looked at. the edges of the universe can't see each other is the context normally associated with what you seem to be describing.