|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 1, 2011 20:04:46 GMT 1
All girls together, eh, Helen?
|
|
|
|
Post by helen on Feb 1, 2011 20:35:21 GMT 1
What will you and Naymissus do if Mak2 is a woman?
Get on with your misunderstanding of physics and the pair of yous difficulty in arguing hypotheses that differ from your own world view!
It's quite entertaining but it's not science. Keep it up guys!
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 1, 2011 20:37:27 GMT 1
Speakertoanimals, I think this thread should be left to the acolyte Abacus and the bully Naysayer to discuss the nature of things amongst their selves. They clearly have ideas about the nature of things which as far as they are concerned they can support, between them. They claim to be searching for knowledge but dismiss anything that they can't get their heads round. This is called arguing from a state of incredulity. Come on Naymissus and Abacuss, open your minds a bit. Let's have some objective thought. Your bullying of speakertoanimals is becoming tiresome as it reveals your misunderstanding of the scientific process and does nothing for your reputations as practitioners of rational thought. ;D Have you read STA's posts my dear Helen? Join in by all means, but do have something useful to add May I ask you, is light accelerateded by gravity? Do you agree with Einstein or do you think the opposite in agreement with STA? |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 1, 2011 20:37:26 GMT 1
Didn't realize you were so feisty Helen!
|
|
|
|
Post by helen on Feb 1, 2011 20:45:47 GMT 1
Of course I've read speakertoanimals contributions; to many arguments. I've nothing further to add to STAs analysis of the nature of things. I've looked back over your contributions and I stand by my contention that you are a bully. Sweetness and light and the fount of sweet reason so long as your corespondent agrees with you. As soon as there is dissent you become the devil. It's not helpful or attractive Naymissus. Do you wonder why fewer and fewer folk engage in any form of discourse with you, Abacuss, marchesarosa, Carnyx or RSmith?
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 1, 2011 20:46:04 GMT 1
What will you and Naymissus do if Mak2 is a woman? Get on with your misunderstanding of physics and the pair of yous difficulty in arguing hypotheses that differ from your own world view! It's quite entertaining but it's not science. Keep it up guys! Personally I would welcome any physicist (we do not have one)! I am so happy that you can see that I am at fault Would you like to help me by explaining to me the entropy of the following binary message? 00110010 and explain if it would be possible to transmit it on a channel C capable of handling messages with entropy of 0.6? Could you please show all your working and give the maximum bit rate of the Channel C in bits/s? Additionally could you give the minimum bit rate required to transfer the binary message 11000000? Thankyou Helen |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 1, 2011 21:03:43 GMT 1
Helen, I do not claim to be a saint, nor does naymissus I guess, but to portray STA as an innocent, undeserving victim of our wrath is preposterous considering the many aggressive, rude and unjustified posts she has made, not only on this MB but also on the old BBC science MB. She often makes posts that are simply incomprehensible to most people and when you dare to challenge her on some of them reacts with the utmost hostility. I think you are biased helen.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 1, 2011 21:06:55 GMT 1
Would you care to explain why YOUR usage of entropy does not agree with Shannons usage in the very paper where he defined it? cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdfSection 7. THE ENTROPY OF AN INFORMATION SOURCE Then perhaps you could explain the difference between the probability computed froma finite sample, and the true probability........................ |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 1, 2011 21:11:36 GMT 1
Except if their casual misunderstandings (misunderstandings that are mostly easily and frequently made) remain unopposed, others will find their own mistaken ideas reinforced.
Don't let ignorance spread!
|
|
|
|
Post by helen on Feb 1, 2011 21:13:11 GMT 1
Ref Msg 20, Naymissus, I havn't a clue what you are talking about and that is the point isn't it it, blind the babe with science? The thing is, I don't give a damn about the nature of the transfer of electronic data, my field of expertise is chemistry; I'm calling the tenor of your posts. Please, for the sake of all of us here, how about a bit more civility to those with whom you take issue?
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 1, 2011 21:24:41 GMT 1
You'd think that anyone who was actually interested in the physics would have asked about this -- yet no takers! I even put it in nice biog capitals, yet still no nibbles.
Just the same ole argument from misunderstood quotations.
I don't give a fig what Einstein said in a sense, because as in many other areas, the way a subject is understood and taught now is sometimes very different from how it was originally developed. Which is why the boring people that like to try and claim they have discovered an error in one of Einsteins derivations are wasting their time (apart from in a history of science sense), because it doesn't matter -- the same result has been derived many times since, using more modern methods and notation and reasoning.
So it is with the speed of light -- Einstein describe it in one way, that would not be the same as the modern usage, where we say speed of light (understood as the speed clocked by someone THERE as the light passes, in a free-falling frame) is invariant, transit times between seemingly fixed points are not.
Actually, its just the doesn't light hover at the event horizon stuff again -- it MAY do so, but that doesn't mean the SPEED is zero, because any free-falling observer falling past will clock the speed of the hovering light as being THE speed of light anyway....................
Its what precisely is meant by speed, and not forgetting the words 'in an inertial frame' that qualify the statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 1, 2011 21:26:12 GMT 1
@sta
Hm. So when Galileo came along, I suppose you would have been out there stacking up the faggots like a good 'un. And when Newton came along.. oh, My! And Darwin? pass the smelling-salts!
(And Helen, when are you and STA going to give up playing the gender stereotype roles and start threads rather than merely react? Time to put down the handbag and engage brain?)
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 1, 2011 21:43:35 GMT 1
You cannot assert that, on the one hand, objects are compelled to follow the curvature of space and on the other, that gravity is not a force. What is it that forces stuff to follow gravitational curvature? If it is not a force than it can have no effect on anything existing in the universe. Commonsense really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 1, 2011 22:20:10 GMT 1
Ref Msg 20, Naymissus, I havn't a clue what you are talking about and that is the point isn't it it, blind the babe with science? The thing is, I don't give a damn about the nature of the transfer of electronic data, my field of expertise is chemistry; I'm calling the tenor of your posts. Please, for the sake of all of us here, how about a bit more civility to those with whom you take issue? But my dear, how can you possibly question my 'world view of science' if you have no idea how to answer the quite simple questions I asked you? |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 1, 2011 22:22:21 GMT 1
I don't give a fig what Einstein said ..... Hahahah! Quite She is referring to Einsteins work 'General Theory Of Relativity'! |
|
