Quantiative Science Before Galileo

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 28, 4:33*am, spudnik <Space...@***********m> wrote:
> waves don't have velocity;

Wave motion has velocity. Since you know nothing about basic physics,
I won't bother any more with you.
What fools we have these days! This is what comes, of leaving proper
science and technology and following careers leading to quick money!
No wonder China and India are going to thrash you lawyers etc. hollow
in the next few decades.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[krw]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>> >> > > > > That's about the same percentage who held that the Sun went round the
>> >> > > > > Earth.
>>
>> >> > > > When did who believe that?
>>
>> >> > > > Bret Cahill
>>
>> >> > > * * * The Bible makes several references that can be interpreted as
>> >> > > meaning the sun goes around the earth. The target audience was
>> >> > > obviously people who thought the sun may go around a flat earth.
>> >> > > However, most of the Bible was probably written down earlier than 700
>> >> > > BC.
>> >> > > * * * In my searches, I have found only one person after 700 BC
>> >> > > actually wrote that the sun goes around the earth.
>> >> > > * * * Herodotus, the Greek/Egyptian historian, wrote a history on or
>> >> > > about 650 BC. He describes a Persian explorer who tried to circle
>> >> > > Africa. This explorer found the angle of the sun a bit anomalous.
>> >> > > Herodotus thought the explorer misinterpreted his data. Herodotus
>> >> > > proposed another model where the sun is close to flat earth.
>> >> > > * * There were Greeks in Herodotus' time who thought that the earth
>> >> > > was round. Herodotus said that those Greeks were obviously wrong and
>> >> > > were just trying to attract attention.
>> >> > > * * Although Herodotus was wrong, he was scientific. The odd anomalies
>> >> > > Herodotus describes prove that the Persian explorer really made the
>> >> > > trip.
>> >> > > * * Herodotus also proved that the issue of a spherical/motionless
>> >> > > earth was still controversial in 650 BC.
>> >> > > * * * There was also a Greek/Egyptian astronomer who claimed, on or
>> >> > > around 50 BC, that the sun went around the earth. I forgot his name
>> >> > > and exact date. However, his ideas were not picked up again till
>> >> > > Copernicus.
>>
>> >> > Thanks.
>>
>> >> > They had math and empirical / qualitative science before Galileo but
>> >> > science wasn't quantitative.
>>
>> >> Not true. *Pi was rather well known 4K years ago. *Earth's size has
>> >> been known for some time, too.
>>
>> >Geometry is math, not science.
>>
>> Wrong,
>
>Are you this doggy poopy stoopid in real life or are you just pulling
>our legs?

We know you're as stupid as DimBulb. ...and snip like him too. Say...

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 28, 9:42*am, spudnik <Space...@***********m> wrote:
> don't be silly. *waves are generally spherical, thence only have a
> speed,
> sans direction.

A wave front from an omnidirectional goes in all directions, a wave
can be directed as in a wave guide. If you had studied
electromagnetic wave propagation in a rectangular waveguide, you would
have heard of such terms as phase velocity and group velocity of the
wave. That is how it is described, in the standard literature. Now
that would be too much for einstieinians and their fools to grasp, of
course.

Obviously, a line of sight situation between transmission and
reception is as a guided wave, only with much more losses because the
wave is not guided. The reflections, refractions involved in wave
interactions with matter, can only be analysed with wave velocity
components.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Jul 28, 10:01*am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@**********>
wrote:
> On Jul 28, 9:42*am, spudnik <Space...@***********m> wrote:
>
> > don't be silly. *waves are generally spherical, thence only have a
> > speed,
> > sans direction.
>
> A wave front from an omnidirectional goes in all directions, a wave
> can be directed as in a wave guide. *If you had studied
> electromagnetic wave propagation in a rectangular waveguide, you would
> have heard of such terms as phase velocity and group velocity of the
> wave. *That is how it is described, in the standard literature. *Now
> that would be too much for einstieinians and their fools to grasp, of
> course.
>
> Obviously, a line of sight situation between transmission and
> reception is as a guided wave, only with much more losses because the
> wave is not guided. *The reflections, refractions involved in wave
> interactions with matter, can only be analysed with wave velocity
> components.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

Maybe needful to add, that if chaps studied engineering especially
antenna engineering and worked on same, making dull stuff radiate,
then they could never never accept such idiotic notions as quantum and
relativity, Einstein's brainchildren. The fact that einsteinians
still exist, and have mastered the art of talking gobbledygook to
impress stupid politicians to extract public moneys, is the single
greatest reason for absence of any fundamental new reserarch in the
modern world. Stupidity abounds, when the clever of the population
turn to making quick money as doctors, lawyers, managers, CEOs,
sportspersons, mediapersons, etc. Ah well, this is probably the
cyclical nature of things! Let us hope that my ideas relating to the
Internal Force Engine and the Hydrogen Transmission Network finally
make it to the public mind (today I am comprehensively outcasted)
before the planet turns into something like Venus, with unchecked
greenhouse effect going on apace! The more the ruling morons say they
are keen to stop it, the more they actually do for the opposite. See
how much pollution Al Gore is causing by flying, so much jet engine
pollution to thicken the layers causing the greenhouse effect!
Parasites all, lamenting the grief they cause to their host!

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Darwin123]

On Jul 15, 2:30*pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> This is easy to know because libertarianism consists of denying that
> relationships exist. *Not only are all equations linearly independent
> in Libertaria, but variables in one equation never appear anywhere
> else.
I agree....
>
> Bret Cahill
>
> "Math is applied logic."
>
> -- Nietzsche
..., however, I despise Nietze. Nietze was perhaps the worse
libertarian there ever was. He may have surpassed Anne Rynd.

[Robert Higgins]

On Jul 28, 12:53*pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...**********m> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2:30*pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > This is easy to know because libertarianism consists of denying that
> > relationships exist. *Not only are all equations linearly independent
> > in Libertaria, but variables in one equation never appear anywhere
> > else.
> * * *I agree....
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> > "Math is applied logic."
>
> > -- Nietzsche
>
> * * * ..., however, I despise Nietze. Nietze was perhaps the worse
> libertarian there ever was. He may have surpassed Anne Rynd.

It is a shame that you despise Nietze, whoever the hell that is. One
wonders who "Anne Rynd" was, as well. There was an author named "Ayn
Rand", who had some interesting points of view that could well be
described as libertarian.

Nietzsche, on the other hand, (as opposed to this "Nietze" person) had
many powerful insights. By no stretch of the imagination, though,
could Nietzsche be described as a "libertarian".

[Michael Stemper]

In article <26198279-7758-4f66-8725-31c7144bee94@t2g2000yqe.************.com>, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins_61@***********m> writes:
>On Jul 28, 12:53=A0pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...**********m> wrote:
>> On Jul 15, 2:30=A0pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>> > "Math is applied logic."
>>
>> > -- Nietzsche
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 ..., however, I despise Nietze. Nietze was perhaps the worse
>> libertarian there ever was. He may have surpassed Anne Rynd.
>
>It is a shame that you despise Nietze, whoever the hell that is. One
>wonders who "Anne Rynd" was, as well. There was an author named "Ayn
>Rand", who had some interesting points of view that could well be
>described as libertarian.
>
>Nietzsche, on the other hand, (as opposed to this "Nietze" person) had
>many powerful insights. By no stretch of the imagination, though,
>could Nietzsche be described as a "libertarian".

I think he's referring the linebacker Ray Nitschke.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A bad day sailing is better than a good day at the office.

[Chazwin]

On Jul 14, 4:57*pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Yet you believe that those in the "soft sciences" are qualified to
> > > > > > comment on the "hard sciences"? *...particularly those that are not
> > > > > > well understood?
>
> > > > > I would offer one example of how the hard sciences absolutely require
> > > > > the soft social sciences. Peer review, which is a social science based
> > > > > upon various sociology methodologies
>
> > > > Peer review is not based upon any social science whatsoever. A person
> > > > chooses those to review an article.
>
> > > Peer review is based upon social science methodology and statistics, a
> > > soft science.
>
> > When, for example, a mathematical theory is reviewed, a chairperson
> > chooses the reviewers. That is the method.
>
> Math ain't science.
>
> Bret Cahill

Except that all pure sciences depend heavily on it.

[Chazwin]

On Jul 29, 9:40*pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Yet you believe that those in the "soft sciences" are qualified to
> > > > > > > > comment on the "hard sciences"? *...particularly those that are not
> > > > > > > > well understood?
>
> > > > > > > I would offer one example of how the hard sciences absolutely require
> > > > > > > the soft social sciences. Peer review, which is a social science based
> > > > > > > upon various sociology methodologies
>
> > > > > > Peer review is not based upon any social science whatsoever. A person
> > > > > > chooses those to review an article.
>
> > > > > Peer review is based upon social science methodology and statistics, a
> > > > > soft science.
>
> > > > When, for example, a mathematical theory is reviewed, a chairperson
> > > > chooses the reviewers. That is the method.
>
> > > Math ain't science.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > Except that all pure sciences depend heavily on it.
>
> As well as a lot of other thangs.
>
> Bret Cahill

Well not really. maths and observation are usually enough.