once again we find out "laws" aren't really what they appear to be and material effects have much to be explored...
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-bristol-physicists-year-old-law.html
and for those who want meat and potatoes instead of journalistic fluff...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.3753
conducts heat 100,000 times better, i wonder where i could use that... ;)
on a side note, fermilab has announced they have discovered a new particle... nope, it's not the higgs boson! imagine that... ;) this one they are calling 'xi-sub-b'.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 20, 2011, 07:02:15 PM
once again we find out "laws" aren't really what they appear to be and material effects have much to be explored...
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-bristol-physicists-year-old-law.html
and for those who want meat and potatoes instead of journalistic fluff...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.3753
conducts heat 100,000 times better, i wonder where i could use that... ;)
on a side note, fermilab has announced they have discovered a new particle... nope, it's not the higgs boson! imagine that... ;) this one they are calling 'xi-sub-b'.
was it discovered by someone on this 'forum' or by a legitimate research foundation?
you know where I am going with this. it takes hard legit research with the proper high tech tools to discover this kind of stuff.
somethings do change. but not unless one has the intelligence to do so.
this is nothing special really at least not yet. discoveries will be made often but not necessarily in your time frame but in our children's time.
besides, your reference to this law that was broken is plural not singular as in your statement, it is just one law, you act like all the laws of physics have been violated.
don't count your laws before they have been properly hatched. laws state that there is no known method and or proof of violating a law in subject until a method and proof is known and peer reviewed then it becomes a rule not a law.
nobody was able to violate it till now, 150 years into the future.
will it take another 150 years to violate another?
someday, meat and potatoes may be against the law. simply because of the rights and well being of 'all' living things. so where does this stand?
it stands with those who are born only in 'those' times.
like it is said, lucky are those who are born in 'those' times.
Jerry 8)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 20, 2011, 10:30:27 PM
was it discovered by someone on this 'forum' or by a legitimate research foundation?
RTFA... ::)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 20, 2011, 10:30:27 PM
you know where I am going with this. it takes hard legit research with the proper high tech tools to discover this kind of stuff.
yeah... you should RTFA... ::)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 20, 2011, 10:30:27 PM
somethings do change. but not unless one has the intelligence to do so.
this is nothing special really at least not yet. discoveries will be made often but not necessarily in your time frame but in our children's time.
besides, your reference to this law that was broken is plural not singular as in your statement, it is just one law, you act like all the laws of physics have been violated.
incorrect. this is something special, you are to ignorant to realize it's potential... and what is this "our children" garbage? do you have a turd in your pocket? i don't have any children... thus negating the concept of "our children"... ::)
i didn't act like that at all. drop the ridiculous hyperbole please... ::)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 20, 2011, 10:30:27 PM
don't count your laws before they have been properly hatched. laws state that there is no known method and or proof of violating a law in subject until a method and proof is known and peer reviewed then it becomes a rule not a law.
nobody was able to violate it till now, 150 years into the future.
will it take another 150 years to violate another?
like it is said, lucky are those who are born in 'those' times.
Jerry 8)
these 'laws' aren't really laws... ::) they are theories (best guesses)...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 20, 2011, 10:55:32 PM
these 'laws' aren't really laws... ::) they are theories (best guesses)...
let me turn this around then.
these theories are not really theories, they are laws until they are broken period. understand.
until you find a way to break that law of physics, it will 'remain' until the appointed time. if there is an appointed time, if ever. you have to prove the law can not be broken, until then you are assuming all laws are just theory.
can you prove that all laws of physics will fail? no, you can not. until you prove that then there is more proof in the law proven.
if you want to violate a law then you will have to be passed by judgement by those who hold the laws in peer review, if you don't then you will become another crack pot in the history of time, unless you are lawless? the laws will always win given time.
I am not here to boil your noodles, I am just here to keep you in your friendly place. you know, the happy place.
or is it we live in a lawless universe? I let you respond to that.
Jerry 8)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 20, 2011, 11:10:40 PM
let me turn this around then.
these theories are not really theories, they are laws until they are broken period. understand.
until you find a way to break that law of physics, it will 'remain' until the appointed time. if there is an appointed time, if ever. you have to prove the law can not be broken, until then you are assuming all laws are just theory.
can you prove that all laws of physics will fail? no, you can not. until you prove that then there is more proof in the law proven.
if you want to violate a law then you will have to be passed by judgement by those who hold the laws in peer review, if you don't then you will become another crack pot in the history of time, unless you are lawless? the laws will always win given time.
or is it we live in a lawless universe? I let you respond to that.
Jerry 8)
no they are not... they are best guesses. period. capiche? dong ma? comprende?
all the current "laws" of physics are theories... based upon axioms... ie: newton's work is based upon the axioms of euclid... etc. etc. ad infintum, ad nauseam.
i don't have to. period. capiche?
i could care less about violating the theories (laws) of academia... ::)
i wouldn't presume to know... such would be megalomania.
i'll leave presumptions like that to you and academia... ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 20, 2011, 11:21:20 PM
no they are not... they are best guesses. period. capiche? dong ma? comprende?
all the current "laws" of physics are theories... based upon axioms... ie: newton's work is based upon the axioms of euclid... etc. etc. ad infintum, ad nauseam.
i don't have to. period. capiche?
i could care less about violating the theories (laws) of academia... ::)
i wouldn't presume to know... such would be megalomania.
i'll leave presumptions like that to you and academia... ::)
look Wilby.
you are neither right nor wrong, simply put. does this sound right?
Wilby, I like you and your postings but I offered my arguments with jest.
you like to jest right?
if you can not then I would tuck my tail and hide because there are some very wide brain pans in this world that would tear you a new spinster.
argument to the truth is what it is all about. this is physics.
Jerry 8)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 20, 2011, 11:33:55 PM
look Wilby.
you are neither right nor wrong, simply put. does this sound right?
sounds like your opinion...
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 20, 2011, 11:33:55 PM
Wilby, I like you and your postings but I offered my arguments with jest.
you like to jest right?
if you can not then I would tuck my tail and hide because there are some very wide brain pans in this world that would tear you a new spinster.
that's nice. arguments? is that what that was? i see... try a cogent one next time. ;)
i like truth far more...
as far as tucking my 'tail' and hiding... that's not going to happen. i'll be their huckleberry. i know the questions they cannot answer. i am aware of the assumptions at the base of their theories... and i have no problem throwing the mediocrity of it in their faces. bring it.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 20, 2011, 11:42:54 PM
sounds like your opinion...
that's nice. arguments? is that what that was? i see... try a cogent one next time. ;)
i like truth far more...
as far as tucking my 'tail' and hiding... that's not going to happen. i'll be their huckleberry. i know the questions they cannot answer. i am aware of the assumptions at the base of their theories... and i have no problem throwing the mediocrity of it in their faces. bring it.
if I run into a brick wall at 300 miles an hour, will I die? maybe, there is a high probability that It would happen given the amount of information on brick wall to velocity collision information but if I was to be on a designated direction at the speed of light and began to merge with the brick wall what would happen?
can you answer that? with or without proven theory?
I'll tell you what physics says about this and why if you don't know.
Jerry 8)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 20, 2011, 11:53:58 PM
if I run into a brick wall at 300 miles an hour, will I die? maybe, there is a high probability that It would happen given the amount of information on brick wall to velocity collision information but if I was to be on a designated direction at the speed of light and began to merge with the brick wall what would happen?
can you answer that? with or without proven theory?
I'll tell you what physics says about this and why if you don't know.
Jerry 8)
you cannot run at 300mph into a brick wall or otherwise... that's just asinine to even suggest. oh did you mean drive? hell i've seen race cars hit brick/cement walls at over 300mph and watched the driver walk away... did you have a point? ::)
you are getting confused jerry...
i don't have to prove anything. i am not the one claiming 'laws'... thus the burden of proof does NOT rest on me... capiche? dong ma? comprende? understand? now, if you think they are 'laws' by all means prove it. prove that NO THING VIOLATES THEM EVER. capiche? dong ma? comprende? understand? if and when you do that i might concede, until then all you have are theories...
as a side note:
regarding this quote of yours... "but if I was to be on a designated direction at the speed of light and began to merge with the brick wall what would happen?"
how do propose to falsify this hypothesis?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 20, 2011, 11:58:51 PM
if you think they are 'laws' by all means prove it. prove that NO THING VIOLATES THEM EVER. capiche? dong ma? comprende? understand?
like I said, 'you are neither right nor wrong'. nor am I, nor is anyone else.
I stick to 'current' observations, until those observations are over written, I will stick with the tested laws of physics. like I said, things do change.
out with the 'old' laws and in with the 'updated' laws. everything gets updated. doesn't matter what.
if you would of had children then you would of been updated too? simple and sweet.
did it really take this long for you to understand that I was not against you and your argument? shame on you Wilby. I thought you were wittier than that.
Jerry 8)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 21, 2011, 12:04:56 AM
like I said, 'you are neither right nor wrong'. nor am I, nor is anyone else.
right and wrong are subjective... are you suggesting science is subjective? ;)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 21, 2011, 12:04:56 AM
I stick to 'current' observations, until those observations are over written, I will stick with the tested laws of physics. like I said, things do change.
out with the 'old' laws and in with the 'updated' laws. everything gets updated. doesn't matter what.
theories jerry... not laws, at least not until you or someone else proves them. ;)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 21, 2011, 12:04:56 AM
if you would of had children then you would of been updated too? simple and sweet.
Jerry 8)
'would have' not 'would of'... i thought you study to[sic] much to be wrong? updated? probably not...
no, it didn't take me that long at all. i just don't like people that THINK they "have studied to[sic] much to be wrong"... now unless you have something relevant to the topic please refrain from posting. if you can't do that, start your own thread on your opinion that theories are laws...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 21, 2011, 12:15:16 AM
right and wrong are subjective... are you suggesting science is subjective? ;)
science observes and tests through physics, what is so hard about this?
Quote
theories jerry... not laws, at least not until you or someone else proves them. ;)
probably not...
a law remains a law until it is not proven a law.
Quote
now unless you have something relevant to the topic please refrain from posting. if you can't do that, start your own thread on your opinion that theories are laws...
oh, I have plenty to share and my topic is as good as yours since this time has past.
so, I guess we 'both' have been rambling on then I guess.
so lets get back to the topic at hand. I'll hand you the ball Wilby.
Jerry 8)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 21, 2011, 12:25:28 AM
science observes and tests through physics, what is so hard about this?
you avoided the question. it requires a yes or a no... nothing more. try again.
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 21, 2011, 12:25:28 AM
a law remains a law until it is not proven a law.
none of the "laws" you refer to have been proven to be inviolate, thus they are nothing more than theories... until you can prove otherwise, your opinion means nothing (except to you).
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 21, 2011, 12:32:36 AM
you avoided the question. it requires a yes or a no... nothing more. try again.
wilby, my apologies, what was the question?
Quote
none of the "laws" you refer to have been proven to be inviolate, thus they are nothing more than theories... until you can prove otherwise, your opinion means nothing (except to you).
no, unless a theory is 'in' violation does it make it a non law. I would hate to see you get your self out of a speeding ticket, really, lol
luckily I know all the police, sheriff, chp and judges in this town or you'd be in trouble. lol
I'll never get a traffic ticket.
I don't bend the rules nor do I break them, I just follow the 'observed' rules.
simply because they are 'observed' doesn't make them breakable or unbreakable. it is possible to update the laws to make them better. some may not be unbreakable.
I think TensilKoala was my hero on this forum though he doesn't show up any more to much but he had a tenacity that rivals mine.
I am a very tenacious person myself. I think, I will never rival Tensilkoala for his knowledge and truth and arguments that he so deeply responds with at times.
observed truth is truth unless something well hidden is revealed. without observation there can be no truth and without absolute truth you are wrong.
maybe in time.
Jerry 8)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 21, 2011, 12:43:28 AM
wilby, my apologies, what was the question?
scroll back up and find it... ::)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 21, 2011, 12:43:28 AM
no, unless a theory is 'in' violation does it make it a non law. I would hate to see you get your self out of a speeding ticket, really, lol
luckily I know all the police, sheriff, chp and judges in this town or you'd be in trouble. lol
I'll never get a traffic ticket.
I don't bend the rules nor do I break them, I just follow the 'observed' rules.
simply because they are 'observed' doesn't make them breakable or unbreakable. it is possible to update the laws to make them better. some may not be unbreakable.
Jerry 8)
speeding tickets are irrelevant. if you can't respond without using red herrings and strawman logical fallacies, don't respond... ::)
what is colloquially called 'laws' by academia are not laws at all. they are theories... until you can prove they cannot be violated EVER by ANYTHING. period.
you must have used that 'period' thing a lot with your kids didn't you? it doesn't work on me. you need to provide a cogent argument instead of logical fallacies... period. ::)
next time you reply with a logical fallacy you make my ignore list...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 21, 2011, 12:50:44 AM
scroll back up and find it... ::)
speeding tickets are irrelevant. if you can't respond without using red herrings and strawman logical fallacies, don't respond... ::)
what is colloquially called 'laws' by academia are not laws at all. they are theories... until you can prove they cannot be violated EVER by ANYTHING. period.
you must have used that 'period' thing a lot with your kids didn't you? it doesn't work on me. you need to provide a cogent argument instead of logical fallacies... period. ::)
next time you reply with a logical fallacy you make my ignore list...
Wilby, it is okay, your safe. no need for all the rhetoric and self defense, people actually like you around here you know. you're just, well, unique, I guess.
Jerry 8)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 21, 2011, 12:59:14 AM
Wilby, it is okay, your safe. no need for all the rhetoric and self defense, people actually like you around here you know. you're just, well, unique, I guess.
Jerry 8)
congrats, you're on the ignore list with the rest of the mental midgets...
you know of course the only way you are going to win 'your' argument is if I have to go to bed right?
Jerry 8)
Wilby. I really do think you are cool, please don't be vindictive of me for my indifference's upon the laws for which I hold with a grain of salt. I hold onto that grain of salt very tightly.
can we settle this with a game of joust? per say?
you do have some intriguing ideas and such, I am very interested in your theories per say. maybe I can attach an argument now and then to make it more interesting.
to keep the fire going as we speak.
Jerry 8)