🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 2, 7:11 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 3:54 am, nonsense <nonse...@unsettled.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > On Feb 1, 3:15 pm, nonsense <nonse...@unsettled.com> wrote:
> > >>If you are afraid to reply to each paragraph
> > >>on its own merits you can justify that. In fact
> > >>you can justify just about anything.
> > > Since you are so in-tune with Max Keon, why don't you explain to me
> > > the merits of that paragraph?
>
> > Cheapshot. WTF is the matter with you? The paragraph
> > stands on its own two feet.
>
> > > My interpretation is that he sees conventional physics as having the
> > > kind of "militant faith" that which Dawkins was alluding.
>
> > That's true. Ever heard the old adage "We have to outlive
> > our teachers?"
>
> > This discussion grows out of the earlier question posed to
> > the public, "What do you believe is true even though you
> > cannot prove it?"
>
> >http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_comparingdawkinsflew.htm
>
> > You've replied with a mathematics that models a universe
> > that you cannot prove is true other than by propping it
> > up with more models, finally claiming there must be some
> > continuity because if one part works this way then all
> > the rest must as well. Don't get burned out on this
> > tidbit because there's some redeeming discussion below.
>
> Cosmic redshift is a start. It depends what you will accept as
> evidence, and whether you will acknowledge that you cannot prove
> things with the scientific method. The best you can hope for is
> consistency with observation, which modern cosmology qualifies. The
> only niggle is that cosmology suffers from lack of experimentation -
> we don't have another universe to toy with.
>
>
>
> > In fact I don't agree with Keon in his details, but the
> > simple fact of the matter is that there is merit to some
> > parts of his thesis.
>
> No, there is not. The background radiation /is/ redshifted and we
> observe it to /be/ redshifted. If he wants me to not laugh is
> assertion that the CMBR should have a blackbody temperature measured
> in microkelvins, he is going to have to do better than "because I say
> so."
>
>
>
> >  > However,
>
> > > what he fails to realize is that he simply does not have the
> > > background required much less the desire required to understand the
> > > explanations given to him.
>
> > Ah, the priesthood thing? If you actually would like to
> > teach him anything, you could.
>
> Again, no.
>
> Look on this newsgroup for a minute. Is it _our_ fault that nobody has
> managed to teach Ken Seto anything for nearly 15 years? At what point
> does the burden shift away from the people trying to teach and onto
> the people who are unwilling to learn?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5ab9a16224b...
>
>
>
> > > Back to the science - he repeatedly tried to make use of an analogy
> > > between gravitational red shift from a point mass and the expected
> > > redshift since the big bang. I kept pointing out that there is no
> > > analogy because the situations are wildly different. Am I being
> > > militant because I think hes a moron for ignoring the explanation?
>
> > Have you tried to write to your audience, that being Keon?
>
> Repeatedly. This is not the first time I have pointed out his flaws,
> I'm just not nice while doing it anymore.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The two of you are talking past one another.
>
> > >>>Is someone a pioneer because they refuse to understand, or just an
> > >>>idiot?
>
> > >>>If you don't want to argue science, that's fine. Just don't expect me
> > >>>to play ball with you on it.
>
> > >>That's a copout and you know it. But that's OK,
> > >>I really didn't expect better. You're still
> > >>seeing red. Just remember that "being right"
> > >>is not a valid justification for all sorts of
> > >>misbehavior.
> > > No, I'm not "seeing red". I have no idea where get
>
> >  > this, but it won't become more valid by repeated
> >  > assertions that I am.
>
> > Because your armwaving and yelling have all the
> > hallmarks that you're angry.
>
> What armwaving? What yelling?
>
>
>
> > > Being right and being nice don't have to overlap.
>
> > I'm usually not very nice myself, but most of the time
> > I think I can get my point across. That's not happening
> > here and I think you can do much better than you have.
>
> > The Uncle Al school of teaching is ineffectual. Please
> > try not to follow in his footsteps in any way. A
> > yelled at student winces, shuts down, and goes into
> > defensive mode.
>
> The Uncle Al school comes after a demonstration of stupidity.
>
>
>
> > Keon has attempted to argue for his points. His math
> > skills exist but are weak. You complain about my
> > "repeating" a strategy. Guess what, your arguing has
> > failed for that very reason. There are other ways
> > to explain why Keon's analogy is wrong.
>
> Which I also tried, but I haven't seen a reply to yet.
>
> I asked him if the gravitational field outside a point source is the
> same as the field inside an extended source.
>
>
>
> > Keon is not your peer no matter how much you treat
> > him as though he were as well invested in mathematics
> > as you are. Now you need to take the next step in
> > your own development and explain the differences to
> > him in terms he can understand. It can be difficult
> > learning to address such matters in plain English
> > after years of living in a world where the people
> > you are dealing with day in and day out explain
> > everything in terms of a succinct equation.
>
> The problem is that I have found that it doesn't matter how it is
> explained - I am assumed to be wrong regardless because I am
> "parroting" [pick your word, there are many] the status quo. It
> doesn't matter how I explain it, how much evidence I bring to the
> table, or how patient I am in explaining things.
>
>
>
> > This paragraph applies to many of the sci newsgroup
> > posters. There is life outside of grad school. Lots
> > of it.
>
> > Now here's the punch line that brings it all home:
> > How would Carl Sagan have dealt with the discussion?
>
> > Your "militant faith" error lies in the fact that
> > you believe that mathematics is the only medium
> > of communications where science is concerned.
>
> If he wants to be _quantitative_, then unfortunately mathematics is
> the only choice.
>
>
>
>
>
> > It isn't. It is the best and the fastest for those
> > who live in the disciplines. Try throwing equations
> > and the sorts of arguments you've been making here
> > into grants.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The extreme of Pound Rebka would be infinite gravitational redshift
and blueshift; zero and infinite energy of light.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laurate 2008