|
Post by helen on Feb 1, 2011 22:41:05 GMT 1
Please Naymissus, my field of expertise is chemistry and chemical engineering. What do you know about that? I'll guess not too much, a little if you have an interest in general science. I have an interest in science in general but make no claim to be an expert in your field. My problem Naymissus is your dismissal out of hand of anyone who happens to question your world view. I don't need to be an expert in information technology to be very aware of your bullying tactic when it comes to those who question the world as you see it. Lay off it man. Listen to others. It makes the world a much more interesting place. I'm minded of the advice given to those who sought the advice of the Oracle at Delphi: Know Thy Self. I fear you would take the advice given, ignore it and......
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 2, 2011 8:33:13 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. And perhaps, Einstein too, as it is his quotation from 'The General Theiory Of Relativity' (CH22) that we are discussing,propmted by rha apparent change of velocity of c in the Shapiro effect
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 2, 2011 8:43:21 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 it is not just the tenor you object to, is it my dear? Here you are commenting on my ideas of physics: '.......it reveals your misunderstanding of the scientific process...' '......Get on with your misunderstanding of physics...........' Now a person making such statements must know where I am at fault when talking of Information Theory (which is what I have been talking of for the last week), musn't they? So I m surprised that you 'have no idea' what I am talking about yet know I am misunderstanding. Most odd Sure I have areas of ignorance in physics (just as you do). I frely admit that. But sometimes, I do know what I am talking about.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 2, 2011 14:17:34 GMT 1
Except you reveal your own ignorance -- Information Theory is a branch of mathematics, NOT physics.
Not in this case.
|
|