Scientific Retards

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/supress1.html

If these morons were alive today they would think petroleum, diamonds, and helium are formed from algae.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If Thomas Alva Edison (quote 2) were alive today he would know a hell of lot more about technology than you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ho, hum {big yawn). Hindsight is always 20/20 and not everyone is a visionary. If they were around today, none of them would say those things now.

On the other hand, we have many fools that will buy into the kind of nonsense you are trying to promote. And they are the ONLY ones who will buy into it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Like alternating current is useless for example?

 

It's never been made clear that he actually believed that. He had a huge vested interest in DC and was in a political battle with George Westinghouse et. al.

 

Let me see if I understand your position: Edison, who was developing direct current products and made 100s of inventions couldn't for example
1) have been misquoted
2) been trying to attack COMPETITION
3) made a mistake

No. He is a scientific retard.

Well. That retard invented an incredible number of useful devices. How many have you invented so far?

 

Actually a quick glance at the list and I see two visionary guys. Edison and Rutherford.

Rutherford, despite being a scientific retard, was well...

oilmastery seems to be getting off somehow on mistakes these people made or allegedly made in predicting this or that. However a number of them probably knew more Science even with his advantage of living in their future than he does. Certainly Rutherford did.

Einstein opened doors that even geniuses did not realize were there. Somehow decades later feeling good about yourself and calling them retards because you have a very cursory understanding of atomic energy is an odd way to pat yourself on the back, but OM seems to be managing it and holding fast. I wonder how long he will hold on to his embarrassing position.

My guess is that OM also does not know much of the history of science either.

Or the basic human fact that even brilliant people make mistakes and get used to viewing the world in certain ways.

 

Oh, I agree perfectly. OIM has made it more than clear that HE'S the scientific retard here. It's just that I've grown so weary of his stupid attempts at grandstanding and pushing his insane and unscientific "theory" that I tend to give him very short answers.

I think he quit school FAR to early - that is, if he bothered to even study anyway.

 

http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2008/06/wallace-e-pratt-on-denial.html

 

Let's make a deal:

If I say you convinced me about abiotic oil and I am going to buy a Hummer as fast as I can tomorrow, will you stop posting these inane shits??

 

I don't need to make a deal. You're the one with incentive bias not me. I wouldn't care if you rode a bicycle the rest of your life.

 

Yeah, yeah but will you stop starting these stupid threads? Just keep it in one contained and I promise I won't prove you wrong...

 

I want you to prove me wrong. That's why I came here...:crazy:

 

Ha! It's already been done several times - you just aren't bright enough to recognize it.:bugeye:

 

Actually the reason these achievements of science exist is because these scientific "retards" have voiced their opinions and others dared to prove them wrong.

 

A but ungenerous I'd say. They were clearly not morons, and one has to wonder what people will say about us in centuries to come, and all those "morons" who "wasted" their lives developing (hypothetically) string theory, even though that was entirely (later) disproved.

Make no mistake there are doubtlessly things you believe that will be superseded by better theories. It reminds me of the (likely apocryphal I'm sure) story I was once told about Wittgenstein. One day he was discussing the decline of the geocentric model of the solar system with a student. The student made a point of noting how stupid the ancients were for believing in that model, to which Wittgenstein replied: "I agree, they were very foolish, though I wonder what it would have looked like if the Sun really did revolve around the Earth?"

 

Anyone who thinks that petroleum, diamonds, and helium miraculously evolve from biological organisms is a moron squared that's the point of this thread.

There is nothing wrong with saying the sun revolves around the Earth. There is no absolute Cartesian coordinate system with the sun at the origin. Relativity proves that if you are on the Earth the sun appears to revolve around you. Noone stands on the sun.

 

The magic word "evolve" enters the panoply of nonsense. We already saw "biogenic origin of crude oil is only a theory". Quotation of authority is established as argument. The circle of Creation is closing.

The latest reasoning seems to be either:

1) Smart guys make mistakes. You make mistakes. Therefore you are a smart guy.

or 2) Smart guys make mistakes. You are mistaken about what smart guys say. Therefore you are correct.

edit in:

I believe this approaches classic .

For glory: Can anyone state, in pithy elegance, a relativistic proof that to someone standing on the Earth the sun appears to revolve around the Earth instead of the Earth appearing to revolve around the sun ? You must specify the difference in appearance, and may not use the word "rotation". Extra glory for including the names "Einstein", "Feynman", or "Darwin".

 

Putting aside for the moment the fact that the information relating to those points you raise doesn't say what you assert is says, you have yet to provide anything more solid than your opinion to refute it.

Opinions are like clitorises - every cunt has got one.

I have set you a challenge in one of your other favourite threads - do you have the testicular fortitude of Eddison? do you dare to meet it?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1888186&postcount=193

 

You are mistaken. Relativity says that *uniform* motion is relative, not accelerated motion (which is not). Planets moving around the Sun are accelerating, and so that situation is fundamentally different than the Sun accelerating around one of the those planets.

As a thought experiment to partially verify, think of it this way:

Proposition 1: (As we all know) Relativity says that nothing can accelerate to a a velocity greater than the speed of light.

Thought experiment: Locate a distant galaxy near the horizon. Let's say its 10 billion light years away. Now, you spin around in a circle, doing one revolution, completing the revolution in one second. If you assume that motion is relative in the way you do, then your revolving in place is the equivalent of that galaxy revolving around you...but that would mean that the galaxy completed a trek of 2 * pi * r (with "r" being 10 billion light years) in one second, well faster than the speed of light by a factor of something like ... carry the trillion ... a whole lot.