I am interested in teaching you what is currently found in the science curriculum, which I think I just succeeded at. The rest is irrelevant.
Scientific theories and reality:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
I am interested in teaching you what is currently found in the science curriculum, which I think I just succeeded at. The rest is irrelevant.
yes, at the uni level.
also, it appears that guolds theory is the primary driving force in the diversity of life.
there are probably quite a few that would like you to believe that aqueous.
The point is that Gould is in the mainstream. So your insistence that it be included is a done deal, so there isn't any reason for you to oppose the teaching of evolution.
No, the mechanisms explained by Darwin, as amended by subsequent evidence, such as Gould's, explains the diversity of life. Gould only explains a few details concerning the irregular pace of evolution, nothing more.
The rest of your complaints directed at me are irrelevant since I accomplished my goal. You now know that Gould is in the mainstream so you no longer have any reason to say you reject the mainstream theory.
Problem solved.
If only he had watched the blind watchmaker YouTube video I linked to earlier...
Liar.
This kind of intellectually dishonest nonsense is pathetic. Mathematical physics. The language of physics. You want to disparage it's importance during analysis. Having mastered key components of this language is part of the scholarship Id was talking about. You're a fool.
forrest noble
Registered Senior Member
No one disparages the ability to derive functional equations that can stand the test of time. It takes great talent. The problem IMO is that the equations derived would be phenomenological rather than also being based upon logical theory.
I consider QM as valid science, but consider it incomplete, and for the most part IMO it is quite lacking in logic. As Richard Feynman said "if you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, then you don't understand Quantum Mechanics."
None, that's why I used the phrase "in principle."
The purpose of math is to solve problems to as much exactness as possible. Problems can arise IMO if equations are derived from observations alone absent theory. The problem then is the practitioner does not know why the equations he is deriving or using should be valid.
Darwin went to the Galapagos as a zoologist. Based upon his observations he developed a clear mental picture of his theory of evolution, clearly explained his reasoning, and provided many great examples in nature concerning his theory and natural selection. Mendel, with his pea plants, also based his theory on solid logic, and showed through experimentation the validity of his theory based upon the probabilities involved while breeding pea plants. Newton was the ultimate scientist. Not only did he theorize in so many fields, but he designed many great experiments to show evidence for his theories, as well as improved equipment (mirrored telescope, prism, etc.) to test his hypothesis and to further gather improved observations and experiments.
Maxwell was a classical scientist. He did the studies and experiments, studied the history of such observations quantitatively and thus developed his theory of magnetism based upon the data and aether theory. His equations have stood the test of time and experimentation and are revered as part of "first principles" in physics along with Newton. His talents are held in the highest regards today. Carnot was both an Engineer and a physicist. He was not well known in his lifetime because he died so young (36), but today is considered the farther of thermodynamics. The core of his ideas and experiments were the bases for those that later developed steam engine technology and later resulted in the concept of entropy. He certainly was a great thinker. But IMO the theory of entropy today involves mistaken concepts.
Balmer was a mathematician and scholar. He didn't marry until age 43, taught at a school for girls until age 60. Both give a clue as to how smart he really was
(my kinda guy). According to my readings he stumbled into atomic physics upon his retirement based upon the suggestions of a friend. After retirement he made his fame based upon his experiments and mathematical talent applied to physics, both spectral emissions and absorptions of atoms resulting in his famous equations based upon atomic phenomenology. As to Lorentz, he was a scholar and scientist of the highest caliber. In school he showed his talents in many fields. After his PhD he took up theoretical physics and helped refine Maxwell's theory of magnetism and his now famous equations. He was an aether theorist like Maxwell and with aether theory developed Lorentz Transforms, the mathematical basis of Special Relativity. He also made significant contributions in the field of hydrodynamics that have stood the test of time.
Last edited:
did i miss something?
it has to be.
this "irregular pace" is typical of the record.
"Scientific dictionaries"? Lol. That's just the Oxford dictionary and it is a concise but not too descriptive definition. More to the point, your own sources disagree with you, as I showed in my other post that you ignored.
Clearly, you didn't read your own link, since it explains why Feynman's quote was not serious.
Forrest Noble, you can't possibly be as dense as you are acting. You must be trolling and lying.
forrest noble
Registered Senior Member
sorry, I do not understand the meaning of your posting based upon your wording.
Yeah, I think you do. You're acting denser than you are.
forrest noble
Registered Senior Member
Yes, what I should have said was the scientific definition/meaning of the word theory.
We both know that it was said with tongue in cheek, but IMO there is a lot of truth to it anyway.
never accuse anyone of lying. That itself is a prime trolling technique to provoke anger. The anger of others is dessert for trolls. There are smarter ways of dealing with it, like asking questions that might uncover a lie. In any event we are all here for the entertainment, and many are here to both learn and teach. I have posted my website URL and scientific papers on this thread before but here it is again if you think that I am not serious, pantheory.org -- over 400 pages of my own theories including theoretical physics (unique equations). The theories and hypothesis have been developed over a period of more than a half a century.
Last edited:
Ayala contacted no-one. Ayala was contacted by a third party who also contacted the administrators of personally owned websites. You have no proof one way or the other whether Ayala has ever contacted Science regardinging Lewin's news editorial only an assumption based on your incomplete knowledge.
It's been demonstrated time and again that you don't understand the record.
Do you know the difference between a paleontological species and a biological one?
No, you shouldn't have, because it isn't: it is a dictionary definition. It is of limited use here. And the word you were misusing at that instant was "language", not "theory".
So you purposely misused it. Yeah, I figured.
Unless it is true. But, see, here are the options:
1. You are really dense/ignorant.
2. You are pretending to be really dense/ignorant.
Right: so what you are saying is that you are just having some fun with us. You're not serious. You are lying about your understanding of the definition of a theory to troll us, for your own entertainment.
Yes, it is clear that you have a well-practiced schtick. At this point, it becomes tough to know how much of your own nonsense you really believe and how much is just regurgitating the practiced troll responses you've honed over 50 years of trolling this nonsense of yours.
And if you are trying to imply a willingness to discuss your theory, you are clearly not willing to defend it against valid criticisms because you've twice now ignored a major and obvious flaw I've pointed out.
Robert Park pointed out in his book "Voodoo Science" that while there is a strong element of self-delusion in a budding crackpot, they quickly turn the corner "from foolishness to fraud" because in relatively short order it becomes necessary to twist or ignore contradicting evidence/arguments to keep the crackpottery alive. It is evident that you turned that corner long ago.
See, most crackpots start off honest, just deluded. They have an idea they like and want to be true and they believe it regardless of evidence to the contrary. But most bad ideas - yours included - have relatively simple flaws that require unforgivable mistakes to overlook. Even if these mistakes are the result of truly spectacular delusion, they are so egregious that they can non longer be overlooked for being the product of delusion: the crackpot knows better or should know better. It's the "sorry, officer, I didn't know the speed limit" defense and it isn't acceptable.
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Speaking as a Moderator, I hope that sentiment is not widespread. We're supposed to be here to teach and learn. That's certainly the way I run the Linguistics subforum.Forrest Noble said:
If you want entertainment, I believe that at last count there were about sixty million websites that provide it. Please relocate to one of them and allow us to continue attempting to keep this place serious.
then why did you call me a liar when i said there is no indication that ayala even contacted the source?
delete that post trippy.
edit:
ah, it was the second part of my post.
ayala responded to the inquiries of the author of "noanswersingenesis".
and there is STILL NO INDICATION ayala contacted the source.
there is no indication that the above author contacted the source either.
/edit
specifically the author of "noanswersingenesis"
yes, and there is no indication this person contacted the source either.
i didn't say proof, i said indication.
also, i believe lewin was employed by the source as an editor.
i understand what was written in the article.
it specifically stated these gaps ARE TYPICAL of the record.
therefor, if goulds theory is correct then it must be the driving force of lifes diversity.
no, but i don't see how this applies to ayala and his quote.
what are you driving at?
lewin was clouding the issue?