[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
You also.
Explain the discrepency in photosphere and coronal temperatures WITHOUT reference, directly or indirectly, to the work of either Ralph Juergens or Hannes Alfven.
Yeah thought so.
Oh and tell us what an experiment is before further posting. You're in the interview stage pal.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Damn, this donkey likes to kick, might have to give it a wide berth and just observe from afar.
I'll give it a shot (from memory):
Scientific Method in Six Steps:
1. Define/Identify the phenomenon to be investigated.
2. Formulate an hypothesis that explains the phenomenon.
3. Recognize the logical implications of the hypothesis.
4. Gather data.
5. Analyze and evaluate the data.
6. Evaluate the hypothesis in light of the data.
Hypothesis must be testable. If the "gathering data" is an experiment then good. Note "explains". This means what causes the effect to happen, as opposed to a mere description.
Ok now we are making progress. We just need the clown committee to tell us the three ingredients for our experiment and then we can go ahead and finish this Cavendish buffoonary once and for all.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Flat earther (and electric sunner, who knew there was such a thing) is talking to a YEC and calling everyone else the clown committee. Thread delivers, 5 stars.
Yeah stand aside. We need guys with a physics learning age of at least 10. (You still have not completed the bbc bitesize work set).
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I will indeed stand aside and observe in awe as you bestow the fire of your knowledge upon us primitives, Brometheus.
Again, a very restrictive definition.
If you are going to continue to define things so narrowly in order to attempt to lead us to your "truths", you might as well just jump to the end because nobody is going to play your game.
Except of course to ask, what's a hypothesis.
Again, a very restrictive definition.
If you are going to continue to define things so narrowly in order to attempt to lead us to your "truths", you might as well just jump to the end because nobody is going to play your game.
Except of course to ask, what's a hypothesis.
Sorry to burst ya little bubble there thinking "embroidery" "counting leaves" "tying shoelaces" "space science" are examples of performing an experiment.
A hypothesis is a scientific prediction as to the outcome of an experiment. It predicts the cause of the effect. That gives us some clue as to the question hanging over this little parade of abject ignorance. That, and we need a fair test.
With that said, say something coherent, just once, and give the three... etc.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
"Space science", yo. That must be where that universal gravitation nonsense comes from.
I'm surprised you don't value the study of empty space, Billy Boy, seeing as there's so much of it between your ears.
Sorry to burst ya little bubble there thinking "embroidery" "counting leaves" "tying shoelaces" "space science" are examples of performing an experiment.A hypothesis is a scientific prediction as to the outcome of an experiment. It predicts the cause of the effect. That gives us some clue as to the question hanging over this little parade of abject ignorance. That, and we need
Again with the narrow definitions. You need to expand your horizons. Did you know that an experiment doesn't need a hypothesis? TMYK
Space science is rather 20th C. Newton derived his statement of proportionality (no equation until much later) from Kepler's laws (data from ironically Tycho Brahe - geocentrist).
To say this is experimentally supported is plainly wrong. An observation is not an experiment. (Further problems re observations ofc but that is besides the point.)
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok, so in your view we can't formulate any theories about anything we can't directly experiment on, right? So that would include basically anything inside the Earth below the crust, or pretty much anything in space beyond where our rockets can travel? Do I have you right, champ?
"Space science is rather 20th C. Newton derived his statement of proportionality (no equation until much later) from Kepler's laws (data from ironically Tycho Brahe - geocentrist).
To say this is experimentally supported is plainly wrong. An observation is not an experiment. (Further problems re observations ofc but that is besides the point.)
You don't even know what the three foundational components of an experiment are, how can you talk about what is or is not an experiment?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok, so in your view we can't formulate any theories about anything we can't directly experiment on, right? So that would include basically anything inside the Earth below the crust, or pretty much anything in space beyond where our rockets can travel? Do I have you right, champ?
Theories.
Stop. Theories REQUIRE experimental support. There are no theories without experiment.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Theories.
Stop. Theories REQUIRE experimental support. There are no theories without experiment.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I think most right thinking people would disagree with you that observations are not experiments. There are a lot of things you can't control to experiment on, like the orbits of the ****ing planets. If your theory successfully predicts the orbits of planets and other celestial bodies, that's a pretty good theory.
Anyway, Billy Goat Boy, if you got something you want to posit, posit it. Whether you're right or not doesn't depend on whether your interlocutors a priori know something or other. You can say "this is what I believe the 3 components of an experiment should be and the experiments you rely on for believing ABC are lacking for reasons XYZ" and if someone disagrees, they can pipe up.
All you conspiracydonks are the same, you think you are proved right if your interlocutor doesn't know something or is wrong about something. You are arguing against mainstream science, not just the people on this forum, so make your case with that backdrop in mind. Whether someone here personally knows what the 3 components of an experiment are doesn't make one iota of difference to your case.
I think most right thinking people would disagree with you that observations are not experiments. There are a lot of things you can't control to experiment on, like the orbits of the ****ing planets. If your theory successfully predicts the orbits of planets and other celestial bodies, that's a pretty good theory.
Experiment you say?
What are the three NECESSARY elements for an experiment please. (See bbc bitesize for help).
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
