Scientific Retards

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OilIsMastery

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

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." -Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology France, 1872 (p.30)

"Fooling around with alternating current in just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." -Thomas Edison, 1889 (p.207)

"I laughed till. . . my sides were sore." -Adam Sedgwick, British geologist in a letter to Darwin in regards to his theory of natural selection, 1857 (p.9)

"If the whole of the English language could be condensed into one word, it would not suffice to express the utter contempt those invite who are so deluded as to be disciples of such an imposture as Darwinism." -Francis Orpen Morris, British ornithologist 1877 (p.10)

"Airplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre (p.245)

"To affirm that the aeroplane is going to 'revolutionize' naval warfare of the future is to be guilty of the wildest exaggeration." -Scientific American, 1910 (p.246)

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" - H. M. Warner, Warner Brothers Studios, 1927 (p.72)

"The whole procedure of shooting rockets into space. . . presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished." -Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer (p.257)

"The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." - Ernst Rutherford, 1933 (p.215)

"Space travel is bunk" - Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik (p.258)

"But what hell is it good for?" -Engineer Robert Lloyd, IBM 1968, commenting on the microchip (p.209)

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -Ken Olson, president of Digital Equipment Corp. 1977 (p.209)
Click to expand...
If these morons were alive today they would think petroleum, diamonds, and helium are formed from algae.
 
OilIsMastery said:
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/supress1.html


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

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.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Like alternating current is useless for example?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Read-Only said:
Ho, hum {big yawn). Hindsight is always 20/20 and not everyone is a visionary.
Click to expand...
Actually a quick glance at the list and I see two visionary guys. Edison and Rutherford.

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

Ernest Rutherford, 1st Baron Rutherford of Nelson, OM, PC, FRS (August 30, 1871 – October 19, 1937) was a British physicist, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on nuclear physics, and for the theory of the structure of the atom.

Rutherford was one of the first researchers in nuclear physics, after the discovery of radiation by a French physicist by the name of Antoine Henri Becquerel in 1896. Rutherford discovered the three parts of radiation which he named Alpha, Beta, and Gamma. Rutherford also discovered that alpha particles were helium nuclei. Rutherford's study led to what we know today about the atomic structure, where the atom is a nucleus and electrons orbit around it.

In 1919, Rutherford made the world's first artifical nuclear reaction, where he put alpha particles with nitrogen gas and created particles of oxygen isotopes and protons. The important thing about the experiment was the fact that he changed nitrogen gas into oxygen gas.

Rutherford was the leader of the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge. He said that the nucleus was made up of protons and neutrons. In 1932 James Chadwick made an experiment at the Cavendish Lab that showed Rutherford was right.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Simon Anders said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Simon Anders said:
Or the basic human fact that even brilliant people make mistakes and get used to viewing the world in certain ways.
Click to expand...
http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2008/06/wallace-e-pratt-on-denial.html

"Experience has invalidated other firm beliefs of those days. We thought that the sedimentary section in Kansas was profoundly thick. We would probably have guessed that the vertical distance to the crystalline floor under central Kansas was nearly equal to the horizontal distance to the crystalline core of the Rocky Mountains. When in 1915, the driller of a "wild-cat" well reported granite at a depth of 1100 feet, or so, right in the middle of the state, we were not only skeptical; we were indignant. We denied that the well had granite; and when the driller under our own supervision, bailed out of the well fragments of beautiful pink granite, we charged that he had planted the granite in there himself!"-- Wallace E. Pratt, Vice President of Standard Oil, Oil In The Earth, 1942, on being confronted with empirical data which annihilates biogenic origin.

This is what Munger calls bias from consistency and commitment tendency.

"It doesn't just catch ordinary mortals. It catches the Deans of Physics. According to Max Planck the really innovative important new physics was never really accepted by the old guard. Instead a new guard came along that was less brainwashed by it's previous conclusions. And if Max Planck's crowd had this consistency and commitment tendency that kept their old conclusions in tact in spite of disconfirming evidence you can imagine what the crowd that you and I are part of behaves like."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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??
 
Syzygys said:
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??
Click to expand...
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...
 
Actually the reason these achievements of science exist is because these scientific "retards" have voiced their opinions and others dared to prove them wrong.
 
OilIsMastery said:
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/supress1.html


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

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?"
 
Pandaemoni said:
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.
Click to expand...
Anyone who thinks that petroleum, diamonds, and helium miraculously evolve from biological organisms is a moron squared that's the point of this thread.

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?"
Click to expand...
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.
 
oils said:
Anyone who thinks that petroleum, diamonds, and helium miraculously evolve from biological organisms
Click to expand...
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:
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.
Click to expand...
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".
 
Last edited:
OilyMasturbator said:
Anyone who thinks that petroleum, diamonds, and helium miraculously evolve from biological organisms is a moron squared that's the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

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
 
OilIsMastery said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top