|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 4, 2018 11:30:17 GMT
Proving relativity involves speeds and energies well beyond practical resources. Completely wrong again as usual. The first practical experiment to detect relativistic mass increase was done in 1900. In fact it predated Einstein's publication of the special theory of relativity. Kaufmann's experiments People here accuse me of being rambling and incoherent, but I am always connected to actual real life measurements, never confusing them (except maybe at 2 a.m.) with speculation or theory. When I speculate or theorize it is always in the context of interesting or entertaining fiction. The description of the experiment you mentioned appears to be of one easily repeated in a college or maybe even a high school lab. Why isn't it then? Perhaps you think the use of radium is too dangerous. When I was young extremely small quantities of radium were used for quite many things and rather safely. Toys that glow in the dark were sold. Watches had dials that glowed from an extremely small quantity of radium. That isn't done anymore, but not because any ill effects were noted. It was because of the association in the public mind with far more dangerous nuclear events. Glow in the dark toys now use phosphorescent materials that gain energy from ambient light. Watches use battery power. Still, for controlled settings like college laboratories it would seem a small matter to use a tiny quantity of radium to "prove" relativity. When I see that I will agree with you. Meanwhile I would ask you to please remember that neither I nor you have seen it. The article skips over quite much detail. There are no pictures (as in or it didn't happen). If it didn't skip so much detail and if it had more pictures I might accept the results without being in the lab myself. Do you also believe everything you read about quarks? I'm curious how Kaufmann's experiment conflicts or does not with all that. Can you tell me? No, of course not.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 4, 2018 11:35:50 GMT
Proving relativity involves speeds and energies well beyond practical resources. It's the kind of equipment a high school could afford. A skilled electrical type could probably knock most of it up in his garage. Why has it not then appeared in high school or college labs? As I just explained to general313 I would accept results I can see.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 4, 2018 11:52:49 GMT
I have medicare, I think. I'm not sure what else. If it appears I need medical treatment and I can afford it I might get it or not after weighing the costs against the likelihood of success. If I cannot afford it I would refuse it, no troublesome decision necessary. Weren't you supposed to be the one so big on logic? Well now how are you going to determine the likelihood of success if, according to you, there's no evidence that medical treatment has any affect on cancer? Why would you even consider medical treatment at all as opposed to... eating cleaner food, or whatever? One way is to talk to a real doctor in person rather that retarded kids on the internet. A real doctor will tell you much the same things I have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 13:13:54 GMT
It's the kind of equipment a high school could afford. A skilled electrical type could probably knock most of it up in his garage. Why has it not then appeared in high school or college labs? As I just explained to general313 I would accept results I can see. What makes you think it hasn't?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 4, 2018 13:35:59 GMT
Well now how are you going to determine the likelihood of success if, according to you, there's no evidence that medical treatment has any affect on cancer? Why would you even consider medical treatment at all as opposed to... eating cleaner food, or whatever? One way is to talk to a real doctor in person rather that retarded kids on the internet. A real doctor will tell you much the same things I have. So "real doctors" tell patients that there's no evidence that medical science can help with cancer? Can you please cite a single "real doctor" that says this?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 4, 2018 14:19:14 GMT
Why has it not then appeared in high school or college labs? As I just explained to general313 I would accept results I can see. What makes you think it hasn't? Testimony, photos, or rather the lack thereof, the fact that I am not stupid, it's just that stupid people think I am, things like that.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 4, 2018 14:29:36 GMT
What makes you think it hasn't? Testimony, photos, or rather the lack thereof, the fact that I am not stupid, it's just that stupid people think I am, things like that. You're not driving the wrong way on the highway, it's everyone else driving the wrong way!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 4, 2018 14:30:31 GMT
One way is to talk to a real doctor in person rather that retarded kids on the internet. A real doctor will tell you much the same things I have. So "real doctors" tell patients that there's no evidence that medical science can help with cancer? Can you please cite a single "real doctor" that says this? They don't use those words, but they do tell the truth, many of the treatments are experimental, it is difficult to know for certain what would happen otherwise, if you want to try some treatment anyway (many people do) which ones might have the best chance of success, what the real chances might be, things like that.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 4, 2018 14:39:10 GMT
Testimony, photos, or rather the lack thereof, the fact that I am not stupid, it's just that stupid people think I am, things like that. You're not driving the wrong way on the highway, it's everyone else driving the wrong way! There are large numbers of you. That is especially obvious on these boards. I can see that. I understand that you believe you're right because there are so many of you. It is quite the dilemma, what to do about such a misguided majority. The corrections are well under way though. No, I do not care how many of you link websites you obviously cannot understand yourselves. No, I do not care how many of you there are here. Your control of the wider world is slowly but surely slipping away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 15:02:45 GMT
What makes you think it hasn't? the fact that I am not stupid Aha. We have found the weak spot in your argument. FWIW, bending particles with magnetic fields is routinely done in schools and colleges.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 4, 2018 15:26:46 GMT
the fact that I am not stupid Aha. We have found the weak spot in your argument. FWIW, bending particles with magnetic fields is routinely done in schools and colleges. You have the obviously mistaken impression that I am not familiar with classrooms, schools, or their laboratories or their methods. This is despite the fact I have schooled you time and time again. You, if what you say is true about having experience with school science, are the only exception. All other teachers agree with me. I studied all these things in school. These are not my ideas. They are the things taught in school. When a person debates for his school, he gets around to other schools. What happened in Kitzmiller is about the school system beginning to recognize the scientific truth that evolution is inadequate (woefully) to explain the origin of life. It is not me against the school system. It is you against me and the school system.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 4, 2018 15:33:56 GMT
So "real doctors" tell patients that there's no evidence that medical science can help with cancer? Can you please cite a single "real doctor" that says this? They don't use those words, but they do tell the truth, many of the treatments are experimental, it is difficult to know for certain what would happen otherwise, if you want to try some treatment anyway (many people do) which ones might have the best chance of success, what the real chances might be, things like that. No doctors call treatments like radiation "experimental" as it's been around for almost a century in its basic form and has improved dramatically since the advent of CT, MRI, and PET scanning that allows doctors to better regulate the dosage and to more precisely target tumors. Of course, these improvements have had no impact on the effectiveness of the treatment.[/sarcasm] I'd say the same thing about the vast majority of the drugs used in chemotherapy. It's really amazing that you think the majority of cancer treatments haven't been subjected to clinical trials before getting cleared by the FDA to be used at all. "Experimental" treatments are only used as a last-ditch effort, and even then only in certain circumstances, usually when a given drug is in the testing phase and needs subjects. You're not driving the wrong way on the highway, it's everyone else driving the wrong way! There are large numbers of you. That is especially obvious on these boards. I can see that. I understand that you believe you're right because there are so many of you. It is quite the dilemma, what to do about such a misguided majority. The corrections are well under way though. No, I do not care how many of you link websites you obviously cannot understand yourselves. No, I do not care how many of you there are here. Your control of the wider world is slowly but surely slipping away. No, I believe I'm right because most of the time I'm just reiterating the consensuses of experts in any given field. On a subject like relativity, you're not just debating some "retarded kids on the internet," you're debating all physicists and satellite engineers who are claiming they have confirmed tests and that they use it for GPS. Yet you want us to think you know something they don't, or that we're somehow wrong (or no different than religious believers) for having "faith" in them.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 4, 2018 15:49:21 GMT
1) improved dramatically 2) I'm just reiterating the consensuses of experts in any given field. 1) based on what data? 2) I believe we've already established you've never met any experts in real life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 15:51:33 GMT
Aha. We have found the weak spot in your argument. FWIW, bending particles with magnetic fields is routinely done in schools and colleges. You have the obviously mistaken impression that I am not familiar with classrooms, schools, or their laboratories or their methods. This is despite the fact I have schooled you time and time again. ![](https://media.tenor.com/images/412523373d623fd594f817934b0ac075/tenor.gif) Arlon, you are a delusional nutcase who knows NOTHING of what you're talking about. Literally nothing. The idea that you have ever "schooled" anybody, or that you have any idea of what qualified people think, is simply a fantasy of yours. LOL, we're talking about bending particle tracks to demonstrate relativity, and because you were made to look like a fool you've suddenly veered into Kitzmiller as if it had something to do with the subject. Now that's a deflection so great it could be used to detect relativistic mass changes! As for Kitzmiller, it demonstrated that "intelligent design" is simply a deliberate, knowing lie; a cover for teaching religious creation as if it were a science. Necessary, since creationism can't stand as a science on its own merits. I can see why you want to pretend otherwise. Your long-standing claim that you were about to overturn the decision only ever served to make people laugh at you, so now you've come up with another lie. Which is also making people laugh at you.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 4, 2018 16:00:20 GMT
Aha. We have found the weak spot in your argument. FWIW, bending particles with magnetic fields is routinely done in schools and colleges. These are not my ideas. They are the things taught in school. So is Relativity, but you conveniently ignore that. What happened in Kitzmiller is about the school system beginning to recognize the scientific truth that evolution is inadequate (woefully) to explain the origin of life. It is not me against the school system. It is you against me and the school system. First, evolution was never and has never been about explaining the origin of life, but the diversity of life. So claiming it doesn't explain something it doesn't try to would be a ridiculous reason to teach something else as an alternative. Second, funny how the Dover school board was made up of Young Earth Creationists, and how even the expert scientific witness for the defense admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." Even assuming you're correct, in general, about science being inadequate at explaining the origins of life, the alternative is not to teach an un-scientific hypothesis like ID, but to simply not anything at all. However, the only hypotheses that have any scientific support whatsoever are all on the side of abiogenesis.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 4, 2018 16:08:44 GMT
1) improved dramatically 2) I'm just reiterating the consensuses of experts in any given field. 1) based on what data? 2) I believe we've already established you've never met any experts in real life. 1) Here's a good overview of the history: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5535674/ Footnotes 16-18 are likely to answer you question. 2) And what difference does that make? You do realize that experts publish books and papers, yes? Why do I have to meet them to learn from them? I've never met Helen Vendler or David Bordwell either, but most of what I know about poetry and film I learned from reading them.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 4, 2018 16:28:00 GMT
1) we're talking about bending particle tracks to demonstrate relativity, 2 it demonstrated that "intelligent design" is simply a deliberate, knowing lie; 1) Why just talk? If you believe you can prove relativity in your kitchen, why don't you? Put it on Youtube. I'd pay good money to see that. Notice I have no emotional investment in this? I have no agenda. I'm not saying I can prove relativity exists or not. I'm just saying you have not proved it. By all measures that matter you have not. It's probably not the best time to bring this up, but I have never seen a heart transplant either and the internet videos are not at all convincing. 2) It demonstrated that backward rogues attacked their own school system because it did not support their belief that there is no god.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 4, 2018 16:35:03 GMT
1) based on what data? 2) I believe we've already established you've never met any experts in real life. 1) Here's a good overview of the history: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5535674/ Footnotes 16-18 are likely to answer you question. 2) And what difference does that make? You do realize that experts publish books and papers, yes? Why do I have to meet them to learn from them? I've never met Helen Vendler or David Bordwell either, but most of what I know about poetry and film I learned from reading them. 1) I'm quite certain and would agree that radiation therapy is less risky than it was whenever it began. That does not by any means indicate that it is not risky. It still is very risky and 2) if you would go to a real doctor he or she will tell you so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 18:38:35 GMT
1) we're talking about bending particle tracks to demonstrate relativity, 2 it demonstrated that "intelligent design" is simply a deliberate, knowing lie; 1) Why just talk? If you believe you can prove relativity in your kitchen, why don't you? Put it on Youtube. Because I have no need. I did the experiments at university. Did it again as a teacher, though there just to demonstrate the principles. No you wouldn't, you'd change the subject and start talking about the origin of life or something. Running away like a coward, as you always do. The laughing doggie is laughing again. We both have agendas, Arlon. Mine is truth. Yours is the determined ignorance of truth. Naturally. You've never seen god, either. And yet. No, the belief that there is no god was never mentioned in the entire trial, you ignorant buffoon.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 4, 2018 18:50:04 GMT
Completely wrong again as usual. The first practical experiment to detect relativistic mass increase was done in 1900. In fact it predated Einstein's publication of the special theory of relativity. Kaufmann's experiments People here accuse me of being rambling and incoherent, but I am always connected to actual real life measurements, never confusing them (except maybe at 2 a.m.) with speculation or theory. When I speculate or theorize it is always in the context of interesting or entertaining fiction. The description of the experiment you mentioned appears to be of one easily repeated in a college or maybe even a high school lab. Why isn't it then? Perhaps you think the use of radium is too dangerous. When I was young extremely small quantities of radium were used for quite many things and rather safely. Toys that glow in the dark were sold. Watches had dials that glowed from an extremely small quantity of radium. That isn't done anymore, but not because any ill effects were noted. It was because of the association in the public mind with far more dangerous nuclear events. Glow in the dark toys now use phosphorescent materials that gain energy from ambient light. Watches use battery power. Still, for controlled settings like college laboratories it would seem a small matter to use a tiny quantity of radium to "prove" relativity. When I see that I will agree with you. Meanwhile I would ask you to please remember that neither I nor you have seen it. The article skips over quite much detail. There are no pictures (as in or it didn't happen). If it didn't skip so much detail and if it had more pictures I might accept the results without being in the lab myself. Are you doubting the results of the Kaufmann experiments or that they were even done in the first place? Your rambling commentary of the minor risks of dealing with radium are irrelevant to the point. There is a lot of established science concerning quark theory. The developers of Quantum Chromodynamics were awarded the Nobel Prize in phyics in 2004. I can tell you that that has nothing to do with the Kaufmann experiments in part because the energy levels involved are far too small for quark theory to matter.
|
|