|
Post by icefisher on Sept 27, 2013 15:39:17 GMT
Any scientific forum spouting dogma without a shred of physical evidence will always be vulnerable. Even a comprehensive demonstration made 170 years ago that cold light from a colder flame can be absorbed by a hotter flame failed to make the slightest difference to your insane responses. Cold light fungus? forget it! Spencers childishly simple explanation? forget it! My experiments to show spencer was right? forget it! All you can do is keep up the same shit for brains insanity that not a shred of evidence has been presented to show you are a f**king moron of science. And most insanely of all, SB shows you are a moron, yet you want to use the damn equation to prove you are right!! The time will come when stupidity such as yours will be eliminated by execution to preserve the human race All this amateur-hour science and backyard science with toy IR readers simply underlines the lack of science on the topic and ends it with a huge exclamation point !
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 27, 2013 15:47:15 GMT
Even a comprehensive demonstration made 170 years ago that cold light from a colder flame can be absorbed by a hotter flame failed to make the slightest difference to your insane responses. Cold light fungus? forget it! Spencers childishly simple explanation? forget it! My experiments to show spencer was right? forget it! All you can do is keep up the same shit for brains insanity that not a shred of evidence has been presented to show you are a f**king moron of science. And most insanely of all, SB shows you are a moron, yet you want to use the damn equation to prove you are right!! The time will come when stupidity such as yours will be eliminated by execution to preserve the human race All this amateur-hour science and backyard science with toy IR readers simply underlines the lack of science on the topic and ends it with a huge exclamation point !How about we just agree you are totally brilliant and it is inevitable you will get multiple nobel prizes for outstanding contributions to human understanding of the world around us. Why not? If it makes you happy you are the worlds most brilliant mind ever. Hey i was totally wrong. The worlds greatest scientists were just ignorant fools compared to your unbelievable skills Serreze and Meir too were totally right I was just out of my depth and acting irrationally. Can we agree on that? All my experiments were total failures and i had to give the poor Indian a couple of thousand to say i was right. Serreze and Meier are outstandingly brilliant scientists and they were just being nice to me just as you said Fancy that! You were right about everything from day one
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 27, 2013 19:03:15 GMT
All this amateur-hour science and backyard science with toy IR readers simply underlines the lack of science on the topic and ends it with a huge exclamation point !How about we just agree you are totally brilliant and it is inevitable you will get multiple nobel prizes for outstanding contributions to human understanding of the world around us. Why not? If it makes you happy you are the worlds most brilliant mind ever. Hey i was totally wrong. The worlds greatest scientists were just ignorant fools compared to your unbelievable skills Serreze and Meir too were totally right I was just out of my depth and acting irrationally. Can we agree on that? All my experiments were total failures and i had to give the poor Indian a couple of thousand to say i was right. Serreze and Meier are outstandingly brilliant scientists and they were just being nice to me just as you said Fancy that! You were right about everything from day one Well I can tell the difference between science done properly and a non-peer reviewed, inadequately documented amateur hour experiment. That seems to require a minimal amount of intelligence at any rate. I have no idea what indian you are talking about or the applicability of color or light has to do with any of this. We are talking about joules of heat adequate to warm many meters of ocean water and a few meters of soil. I find it fascinating that one can calculate the temperature of a surface of a rotating sphere in the presence of the sun using the inverse square law and the answer comes out fundamentally correct whether the sphere takes 28 days to rotate or it takes 24 hours to rotate. That suggests to me you are incorrect in suggesting the sun would warm the surface more if cooling were restricted purely by radiation as cooling is somewhat restricted by the hot object warming it. Now I am not so egotistical as to whole heartedly believe in intuition and perception. I can agree that intuition can be in error and perception is not always what it seems to be. So I am not flatly making claims simply on the basis of extrapolation. Nor am I calling you a moron because you don't believe me. I think that if you are going to call somebody a moron on a topic such as this you should be prepared to back it up by replicable and carefully constructed science, science that is well documented and unequivocal. However, some people have heads way too big for their britches. It doesn't matter to them if they can demonstrate their belief or not. Heck they put people on the rack and make them recant, burn them at the stake. . . .all because they cannot actually demonstrate with certainty what they want others to believe. Its just pure ignorance. They can't clearly demonstrate their belief and they know it so they get mad when somebody disagrees with them because in a very Freudian-type way they know the skeptic is making them look like a fool. If you aren't stupid or predisposed to jump to conclusions you don't have those kinds of problems. You merely can feel confident you are correct in being skeptical or having a proven belief because you simply do not ascribe to stuff that isn't based in true science. Its obvious you are well short of such comfort.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 28, 2013 5:29:54 GMT
you are incorrect in suggesting the sun would warm the surface more if cooling were restricted purely by radiation as cooling is somewhat restricted by the hot object warming it. You are right of course. I suppose back in 1850 people really had no idea at all - and with hindsight we can easily see why when they did not have todays advanced techniques and peer review was more or less a london club. Looking back on it all, it seems impossible that anybody could be so stupid as to believe an object 93 million miles away could possible warm the earth to get hotter because of water! You only have to look at Tyndall to see the guy was odd. I just cant believe I was so stupid
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 28, 2013 15:48:16 GMT
You are right of course. I suppose back in 1850 people really had no idea at all - and with hindsight we can easily see why when they did not have todays advanced techniques and peer review was more or less a london club. Looking back on it all, it seems impossible that anybody could be so stupid as to believe an object 93 million miles away could possible warm the earth to get hotter because of water! You only have to look at Tyndall to see the guy was odd. I just cant believe I was so stupid I guess you don't know the difference between a peer reviewed science paper and a picture of your long dead great uncle.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 28, 2013 17:56:19 GMT
You are right of course. I suppose back in 1850 people really had no idea at all - and with hindsight we can easily see why when they did not have todays advanced techniques and peer review was more or less a london club. Looking back on it all, it seems impossible that anybody could be so stupid as to believe an object 93 million miles away could possible warm the earth to get hotter because of water! You only have to look at Tyndall to see the guy was odd. I just cant believe I was so stupid I guess you don't know the difference between a peer reviewed science paper and a picture of your long dead great uncle. You are right, I am too stupid to do anything correctly.
|
|