Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by sureshbansal, Feb 19, 2007.
So what? Geniuses get things wrong too.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Plus he didn't have the perspective and knowledge we have know.
You can be a genius but you're still largely tied to what's known at the time.
I disagree. Geniuses don't need data, they observe and draw a conclusion from the facts.
Leonardo knew man could fly hundreds of years before it actually happened. And before it happened contemporary scientists said it was impossible.
Leonardo designed a parachute long before the first one has been made. Why?
Quite simple, really. If you trap air under a canvas it can keep you in the air....
How come nobody thought of that before AND after hundred years after Leonardo?
Because most people don't take the effort to open up their eyes to the facts and keep repeating what they are told even if it doesn't make sense.
actually people belive in only what has written in books only.they do not want to apply thier mind.i have very very clear visual evidence that earth is growing like a tree and its birth is from seed like tree. here meteroids are seeds of planets out of very few can germinate only and can convert in big planets.you can see also attached as also.you can also reach firstname.lastname@example.org
Asteroid and Plant
Seeds and Meteorids
Bark of Tree and Earth
SUBDUCTION ZONE OF TREE SNAPS
BARK OF TREE
You are aware that data are facts, are you not? Apparently not. Let me advise you that when persons, such as yourself, reveal they are completely unaware that data are facts, then people such as myself conclude there is little point in listening to anything else you say.
Provide facts that show that the majority of contemporary scientists qualified to consider the matter actually believed this.
I think you will find it is considerably more complex than that. (Well, I don't think you will find that since you are unlikely to even try.)
How come you don't do better research? Ah, that's right. You aren't a genius, so you have no time for facts or data.
The next records of attempted flights come from the Islamic Spain during the Umayyad renaissance. In 852, Arab polymath and inventor Abbas Ibn Firmas made a set of wings with cloth stiffened by wooden struts. His device was similar toan umbrella and did no fly, but slowed his landing. This invention is now considered a prototype for the modern parachute.
In 877, the same Ibn Firnas is said to have flown using a rudimentary glider. Frinas crashed and sustained injury. Some critics attribute this accident to a lack of a tail. But his flight may have served as an inspiration for Eilmer of Malmesbury who flew for some 200 meters using a similar glider in 1010.
Nope, he speculated that it was possible. There's a difference.
Quite simple really: anything is ALWAYS designed before the first one is made. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ophiolite and Oli,
You just demonstrated the attitude that makes it impossible to discover new things.
For open minded people, running into people like you is like running into a brick wall.
You have an argument against everything and if you don't, you attack the other person.
When I joined this forum it said something about not insulting the other members. You might not have read it.....
My advice to you - and this is the last time I am replying - to try to put your energy into thinking and you might discover how wrong you have been all along.
For your information (that being data, also known as facts) I personally have discovered new things.
Keep trying: simply because we spot the (obvious) flaws in your "argument" does not mean that we argue against everything.
Bone headed ideas are bone headed.
Take your own advice.
You're in the wrong, not us.
Oh, and learn what actually constitutes insulting a member, [insult removed].
jsispat, I can't PM you yet, I sent you an email.
I have a very similar theory that I am working on.
Let's work together, don't waste your time getting insulted on this board. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ah, so. Earth is dog. Dog bark, Earth bark, Earth must be dog. Right? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Good idea, work together. That way you can waste twice as much time getting insulted on a different board. You may even create synergy, start to develop your own bark and travel to Sirius.
The guy obviously doesn't speak English well, but he can still have a brilliant mind....
Remember, today's "crackpots" are tomorrows geniuses.
And those who oppose them will be remembered as the ones who vehemently opposed something that revolutionized science.
Only the ones that are actually right.
On the other hand, dross is still dross.
That's curious. I use exactly that attitude to discover new things in relation to oil exploration. None of them have been Earth shattering (pun intended), but they have cumulatively saved my customers tens of millions of dollars and earned my employer millions of dollars. Do you suppose that the attitude might actually have something going for it?
What was that attitude, by the way? Oh, yes. In part it was to seek out errors of fact and errors of logic. I realise you claim you will not participate in further discussion with me, but I'm counting on you not being genuine about having an open mind.
Do you still maintain that facts and data are different? (Sure I can make a distinction between the two, since they are two different words, but in many/most applications they are the same.) Seriously, do you really think these are two different things? Can you at least acknowledge that you made an error here and the only thing I did was to point it out. Suddenly, for pointing out your error I am the 'bad man'. Does that seem fair and reasonable to you? I hope not.
Do you understand how science works? I don't think so. If you did you could never make a remark like that.
Of course I have an argument against everything. That is what one is meant to do in science. It is how we test speculations, hypotheses and theories. They have to be rigorously and endlessly questioned, probed and attacked. It is how they are refined and improved, if they are sound, or abandoned if they are faulty.
Any scientist worth the name will be his own fiercest critic of his own idea. But she will also be smart enough to appreciate the value of different perspectives. She will seek out colleagues to attack her hypothesis with all the ammunition they can muster. Have you never heard of peer review?
So even if I see an idea I like, while I might comment favourably on it and even offer supporting data, I shall also seek out its weakest aspect and attack it violently. You need to understand that to do it in any other way is to fail.
However, your post was a special case. You simply made several statements that were in error. They were not debatable. They were not possibilities. They were simply wrong. You do not want to accept that. Fine. Remain ignorant. It is a foolish choice, but it is one you are free to make.
I set you a couple of challenges:
"Provide facts that show that the majority of contemporary scientists qualified to consider the matter actually believed this."
All you had to do was to gather that information, post it, and thereby prove that you were correct. That is how these things work. That is how you convince your audience of your idea. With facts.
But what did you actually do? You ran away, crying that dealing with me was like running into a brick wall. Poor litte man. If you think you are correct the solution is simple. Prove it.
I also challenged your understanding of aerodynamics: "I think you will find it is considerably more complex than that."
All you had to do was to come back with some basic aeronautical equations, described in your own words and you could have made me look foolish.
You know what EAdam, I keep hoping someone like you will come along and do exactly that. It would demonstrate there is hope for them. But instead we get this vacuous litany of whining. "It's not fair. You are so closed minded. It's people like you who slow down progess."
No EAdam, it is people like you who remain stubbornly ignorant, run away from vigorous questioning and clutch logical fallacies close to your chest.
Now are you going to take the opportunity afforded you here to grow up and start to learn some real things, or are you going to retreat into your comfortable world of self delusion?
OK, you are right, you actually did not attack me, I put you in the same category as the people here who make fun of things.... That was unfair, sorry.
I just felt the contempt that usually comes from experts when something they have studied is being questioned.
That being said:
Actually, you must admit that everything big starts out with a small observation. First somebody watched how the birds fly, or how leaves fall from the tree, and concluded that the air is not "nothing" as it seems, but it can actually "hold" things, even if for a short time. This person further concluded that the weight it can hold depends on the surface of the leaf, or whatever.... the angle of the fall, etc. So far this is a very simple observation. Yes, further developed it becomes modern aerodynamics, but it started with one simple thought. Somebody saw something that other people didn't in spite of having looked at the same thing millions of times. This is the moment a genius discovers something. *The genius says, OK, how big should that leaf be to hold a person? and the parachute is being born.
He sits in the bathtub, or watches a lid moving on the top of a pot full of boiling water.
The Arabs tried it before? Sure. There are always people who have ideas without ever succeeding, or even talking about them to others.
Depends what you call data. If you mean all those tables filled with numbers, no, geniuses don't need that. If you mean looking at the "evidence" the falling leaf, yes, if that is data, they need data....
As far as your profession is concerned. Your job is to prevent disaster, and I hope you are good at it and don't take risks.
But it is very different from trying to figure things out.
To do that you have to go to places in your mind where other people would never do. You have to surpass the point where others say "this is nonsense."
And this is what I do.
BTW who is the "Poor little man"? Who are you talking to?
Or are you so prejudiced that you assume only men are interested in science? LOL
ps. I am leaving on 2 weeks vacation and not sure if I will have Internet access.... So be patient, as long as you talk about the issue, I will be back to do some "peer review".
Talk to you later.
Um, that's usually information, not data.
Nope, it isn't.
Oh, good for you.
Like no-one else here does that...
Sorry, I forgot this one?
"Provide facts that show that the majority of contemporary scientists qualified to consider the matter actually believed this." (flying)
OK, then why did nobody try to build one? If scientists believe in something they can build a tunnel for billions in Switzerland. Why did it have to be a bycicle dealer?
You must admit it takes ONE smart person to discover something. Until this smart person arrives, everybody else is looking at it with open eyes and denies it.
Because no-one else was particularly interested.
Actually it wasn't left to bicycle dealers (the Wrights were actually manufacturers), but there was also Ader, Cayley...
It was a coming together of available technologies - steam-powered aircraft had been tried but couldn't produce the requisite power.
When it's steam engine time we build steam engines....
So Kelvin constituted a majority of scientists?
Kelvin was a scientist and speaking outside of his discipline (physicist talking about engineering).
More than likely to be wrong...
Admitted, but once that smart person has pointed it out then (if it's correct) lots of other people say "Of course! That's the answer".
Conversely when a crackpot points out something out that's patently nonsense everyone tells him so... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.