Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being (Read 2387 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • 1,884

  • 270

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #25
That's as maybe, but you're an idiot with delusions of adequacy, so nobody cares what you think.
Why do I bother?

  • 3,581

  • 933

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #26
Well if we refuse to ok him deleting his account, I'm sure his ego will keep him responding. ;)
I hope so. It's been way too long since we've had a fun new crackpot. Frankly I already miss him and fervently hope he hasn't already left us.  :ohdear:

Pleeeeaaasssse can we keep him??
That's up to him. His account is active, but apparently I offended him beyond recovery by telling him not to spam his book/s here. I don't think he noticed or understood that I also moved his threads to ASS. :ohmy:

  • el jefe
  • Needs a Life
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
  • 3,165

  • 673

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #27
We did test the laws of gravity. Turns out the predictions they make when it comes to really big things that are very close don't match reality- e.g. Planet Vulcan.

Einstein seems to have got it right. Although now we have the problem of getting that to work with very small things.
um, blindly believing newton and Einstein just because we're told they were authorities is not "testing" the theory.  ::)

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 4,019

  • 717

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #28
Well if we refuse to ok him deleting his account, I'm sure his ego will keep him responding. ;)
I hope so. It's been way too long since we've had a fun new crackpot. Frankly I already miss him and fervently hope he hasn't already left us.  :ohdear:

Pleeeeaaasssse can we keep him??
That's up to him. His account is active, but apparently I offended him beyond recovery by telling him not to spam his book/s here. I don't think he noticed or understood that I also moved his threads to ASS. :ohmy:
That was all he was here for.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • 3,581

  • 933

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #29
Yeh, he said as much in his exit speech.

  • 1,884

  • 270

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #30
We did test the laws of gravity. Turns out the predictions they make when it comes to really big things that are very close don't match reality- e.g. Planet Vulcan.

Einstein seems to have got it right. Although now we have the problem of getting that to work with very small things.
um, blindly believing newton and Einstein just because we're told they were authorities is not "testing" the theory.  ::)

I'm not aware of any physicist that does that. There are a few that think we still haven't got gravity right.
Why do I bother?

  • el jefe
  • Needs a Life
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
  • 3,165

  • 673

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #31
I picked gravity as my example, because it has been so thoroughly tested, I thought for sure everyone would know I was kidding.

what I was doing here was trying to read the OP's mind, and maybe even get a confirmatory reaction if what i was saying had resonated with him.

  • 383

  • 3

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #32
it appears someone did ok it. sad!

Nope.  I disapproved the request and sent him a PM explaining we don't do profile deletions.

I predict you assbites will be changing this policy soon. 

  • 383

  • 3

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #33
That's as maybe, but you're an idiot with delusions of adequacy, so nobody cares what you think.

Not even one of you pricks addressed the math in the orginal post.

This is forum that caters to retired engineers who have zero ability to think outside the box.

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
  • 646

  • 186

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #34
Not even one of you pricks addressed the math in the orginal post.
So you're whining about not getting as much attention as you want?

  • 383

  • 3

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #35
James could make a name for himself by actually weighing dry air and moist air, and thereby demonstrating that his hypothesis is correct. Too much trouble, I guess.

If it has never been measured/tested/verified then its an open question.

Avogadro's Law is well understood.  The math indicates moist air is heavier.

You could make a name for yourself by disproving Avogadro.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes


  • 383

  • 3

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #36
We did test the laws of gravity. Turns out the predictions they make when it comes to really big things that are very close don't match reality- e.g. Planet Vulcan.

Einstein seems to have got it right. Although now we have the problem of getting that to work with very small things.
um, blindly believing newton and Einstein just because we're told they were authorities is not "testing" the theory.  ::)

I'm not aware of any physicist that does that. There are a few that think we still haven't got gravity right.

They all do.

  • 383

  • 3

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #37
the reason people don't listen to my breakthrough ideas is that their reasoning is purely based on arguments from authority and I am not (yet!) one of their "Esteemed Authorities".  but the only reason I am not considered an authority is that people won't listen to my breakthrough ideas!  it's a catch-22!

the only way I can break through this barrier is to get you sheeple to wake up.  newton was just a human being, you morons!  stuff wasn't true just because he said it. he was capable of being wrong.  has anyone ever ACTUALLY TESTED the law of gravity?  ANYONE?!  I didn't think so.

see what I mean?  you are all blindly following this newton guy just because "ooh look, he's such an expert!", but you don't realize you are just relying on circular logic.  no one knows whether his theories are actually true.  it could be the inverse cube law, for all we know.

there's your free lesson #1, morons.  arguments from authority are a fallacy.  you're welcome!

You fuckwits don't have arguments.

  • 8,485

  • 1338

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #38
James could make a name for himself by actually weighing dry air and moist air, and thereby demonstrating that his hypothesis is correct. Too much trouble, I guess.

If it has never been measured/tested/verified then its an open question.

Avogadro's Law is well understood.  The math indicates moist air is heavier.

You could make a name for yourself by disproving Avogadro.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes


We are talking about air at equal pressure, weighed at the same place, right?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • 383

  • 3

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #39
Mystery solved: TR does not delete accounts. :D

Against the Charter.

This explains the incredibly low quality of the discussion here. 

  • 383

  • 3

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #40
James could make a name for himself by actually weighing dry air and moist air, and thereby demonstrating that his hypothesis is correct. Too much trouble, I guess.

If it has never been measured/tested/verified then its an open question.

Avogadro's Law is well understood.  The math indicates moist air is heavier.

You could make a name for yourself by disproving Avogadro.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes


We are talking about air at equal pressure, weighed at the same place, right?

Obviously.

  • 8,485

  • 1338

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #41
Jim, what do you think of Pollack's theory of crystalline behavior at ez's?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • 3,581

  • 933

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #42
Mystery solved: TR does not delete accounts. :D

Against the Charter.


This explains the incredibly low quality of the discussion here. 
You're free to avoid all discussions here.

  • 383

  • 3

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #43
the reason people don't listen to my breakthrough ideas is that their reasoning is purely based on arguments from authority and I am not (yet!) one of their "Esteemed Authorities".  but the only reason I am not considered an authority is that people won't listen to my breakthrough ideas!  it's a catch-22!

the only way I can break through this barrier is to get you sheeple to wake up.  newton was just a human being, you morons!  stuff wasn't true just because he said it. he was capable of being wrong.  has anyone ever ACTUALLY TESTED the law of gravity?  ANYONE?!  I didn't think so.

see what I mean?  you are all blindly following this newton guy just because "ooh look, he's such an expert!", but you don't realize you are just relying on circular logic.  no one knows whether his theories are actually true.  it could be the inverse cube law, for all we know.

there's your free lesson #1, morons.  arguments from authority are a fallacy.  you're welcome!

Address the argument in the first post, you fucking mental retard.

  • 383

  • 3

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #44
Jim, I must warn you that spamming your book here may lead to deletions and/or restrictions and/or bannings.

If you wish to discuss Alternative Science, we have a subforum for that. Please don't clutter other subforums.

Thank you and welcome to TR.

ETA: I've moved the topic from Science to ASS.

Carry on.

Too much stupidity here.  I think everybody here is an engineer, not a scientist.

If I can't advertise my book I have no reason to be here.

Goodbye

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes



Good riddance.  By the way, most engineers start their education by learning the basics of science.

  • 383

  • 3

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #45
Jim, I must warn you that spamming your book here may lead to deletions and/or restrictions and/or bannings.

If you wish to discuss Alternative Science, we have a subforum for that. Please don't clutter other subforums.

Thank you and welcome to TR.

ETA: I've moved the topic from Science to ASS.

Carry on.

Too much stupidity here.  I think everybody here is an engineer, not a scientist.

If I can't advertise my book I have no reason to be here.

Goodbye

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes



Good riddance.  By the way, most engineers start their education by learning the basics of science.

LOL.  You are told what to believe and you believe it.  That isn't science. That is religion.

  • 383

  • 3

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #46
Quote from: jimmcginn
Isaac Newton was a human being
by James McGinn

In response to:
Understanding air density and its effects
05/17/2005 - Updated 09:46 AM ET
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wdensity.htm

Was Isaac Newton omniscient?  Or was he a human being, capable of making a mistake?  I think the latter is the case.  But according to the USA Today article quoted herein you might think it the former.

The article addresses the comparative weight of moist air to dry air. It purports to identify a common misconception, that moist air is heavier than dry air. In actuality It turns out they are wrong. As most people generally assume, moist air actually is heavier than dry air. So the misconception, actually, is this notion that moist air is lighter than dry air, a notion that is foisted upon us by academia. 

According to this article, the originator of this falsehood is none other than Isaac Newton.  Apparently, in his 1717 in his book Optics Newton made a statement to this effect. The article then goes on to describe the reasoning, which I present below.  Continuing on, the article describes this erroneous notion as being, "known."  But it actually isn't known and never has been.  For something to be known it has to be tested, measured, or observed.  Or it has to be calculated based on assumptions that themselves are tested, measured, or observed.  And, apparently, that is where Newton, and all of academia hence, made an error: 

    USA Today:
    "To see why humid air is less dense than dry air, we need to turn to one
    of the laws of nature the Italian physicist Amadeo Avogadro discovered
    in the early 1800s. In simple terms, he found that a fixed volume of gas,
    say one cubic meter, at the same temperature and pressure, would
    always have the same number of molecules no matter what gas is in the
    container."

James McGinn:
This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient temperatures/pressures.  It is still liquid.  It is an evaporate, a vapor and, therefore, It consists of microdroplets of liquid H2O suspended by electro-static forces between air molecules. Often these microdroplets are very small, so small they are invisible--just as invisible as gaseous H2O (this is what confuses most of us).  All in all, there is zero evidence hat moisture in our atmosphere is mono-molecular (gaseous) and there is a wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that gaseous H2O can only exist above its boiling point, which is much higher than is available in our ambient environment.

    USA Today:
    "Most beginning chemistry books explain how this works. Imagine a cubic
    foot of perfectly dry air. It contains about 78% nitrogen molecules, which
    each have a molecular weight of 28 (2 atoms with atomic weight 14) .
    Another 21% of the air is oxygen, with each molecule having a molecular
    weight of 32 (2 atoms with atomic weight 16). The final one percent is a
    mixture of other gases, which we won't worry about. Molecules are free
    to move in and out of our cubic foot of air."

James McGinn:
Up to this point everything they are saying here is accurate.  Here is where the problem lies:

    USA Today:
    "What Avogadro discovered leads us to conclude that if we added water vapor
    molecules to our cubic foot of air, some of the nitrogen and oxygen molecules
    would leave -- remember, the total number of molecules in our cubic foot of air
    stays the same. The water molecules, which replace nitrogen or oxygen, have a
    molecular weight of 18. (One oxygen atom with atomic weight of 16, and two
    hydrogen atoms each with atomic weight of 1). This is lighter than both nitrogen
    and oxygen, which average out at 29. In other words, replacing nitrogen and
    oxygen with water vapor decreases the weight of the air in the cubic foot; that
    is, it's density decreases."

James McGinn:
The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the number of H2O molecules in the microdroplets.  What is the correct number for X?  Well, the truth is we don't know.  It is, in my opinion, most likely never smaller than 10, thus the correct number to put into this equation wouldn't be 18 it would be 180 or larger.  It is possible it might be as small as 3 in some particularly dry bodies of air, in which case it would be 54, still making moist air considerably heavier than dry air.  But even if it is only 2 the atomic weight of X, at 36, would still be heavier than that of dry air, at 29. 

So, if somebody tells you that the notion that moist air is heavier than dry air is a myth you can tell them that this myth is actually a myth.  You can also tell them that Isaac Newton was not a deity sent from heaven but a normal human being, prone to the foibles of failing to confirm his assumptions, just like the rest of us.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

Here is a link to the most viewed post in the history of usenet:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

Address my argument, you fucking fruitcakes.

  • el jefe
  • Needs a Life
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
  • 3,165

  • 673

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #47
We did test the laws of gravity. Turns out the predictions they make when it comes to really big things that are very close don't match reality- e.g. Planet Vulcan.

Einstein seems to have got it right. Although now we have the problem of getting that to work with very small things.
um, blindly believing newton and Einstein just because we're told they were authorities is not "testing" the theory.  ::)

I'm not aware of any physicist that does that. There are a few that think we still haven't got gravity right.

They all do.
I'll take this as confirmation of my read on you

  • 383

  • 3

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #48
Quote from: jimmcginn
Isaac Newton was a human being
by James McGinn

In response to:
Understanding air density and its effects
05/17/2005 - Updated 09:46 AM ET
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wdensity.htm

Was Isaac Newton omniscient?  Or was he a human being, capable of making a mistake?  I think the latter is the case.  But according to the USA Today article quoted herein you might think it the former.

The article addresses the comparative weight of moist air to dry air. It purports to identify a common misconception, that moist air is heavier than dry air. In actuality It turns out they are wrong. As most people generally assume, moist air actually is heavier than dry air. So the misconception, actually, is this notion that moist air is lighter than dry air, a notion that is foisted upon us by academia. 

According to this article, the originator of this falsehood is none other than Isaac Newton.  Apparently, in his 1717 in his book Optics Newton made a statement to this effect. The article then goes on to describe the reasoning, which I present below.  Continuing on, the article describes this erroneous notion as being, "known."  But it actually isn't known and never has been.  For something to be known it has to be tested, measured, or observed.  Or it has to be calculated based on assumptions that themselves are tested, measured, or observed.  And, apparently, that is where Newton, and all of academia hence, made an error: 

    USA Today:
    "To see why humid air is less dense than dry air, we need to turn to one
    of the laws of nature the Italian physicist Amadeo Avogadro discovered
    in the early 1800s. In simple terms, he found that a fixed volume of gas,
    say one cubic meter, at the same temperature and pressure, would
    always have the same number of molecules no matter what gas is in the
    container."

James McGinn:
This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient temperatures/pressures.  It is still liquid.  It is an evaporate, a vapor and, therefore, It consists of microdroplets of liquid H2O suspended by electro-static forces between air molecules. Often these microdroplets are very small, so small they are invisible--just as invisible as gaseous H2O (this is what confuses most of us).  All in all, there is zero evidence hat moisture in our atmosphere is mono-molecular (gaseous) and there is a wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that gaseous H2O can only exist above its boiling point, which is much higher than is available in our ambient environment.

    USA Today:
    "Most beginning chemistry books explain how this works. Imagine a cubic
    foot of perfectly dry air. It contains about 78% nitrogen molecules, which
    each have a molecular weight of 28 (2 atoms with atomic weight 14) .
    Another 21% of the air is oxygen, with each molecule having a molecular
    weight of 32 (2 atoms with atomic weight 16). The final one percent is a
    mixture of other gases, which we won't worry about. Molecules are free
    to move in and out of our cubic foot of air."

James McGinn:
Up to this point everything they are saying here is accurate.  Here is where the problem lies:

    USA Today:
    "What Avogadro discovered leads us to conclude that if we added water vapor
    molecules to our cubic foot of air, some of the nitrogen and oxygen molecules
    would leave -- remember, the total number of molecules in our cubic foot of air
    stays the same. The water molecules, which replace nitrogen or oxygen, have a
    molecular weight of 18. (One oxygen atom with atomic weight of 16, and two
    hydrogen atoms each with atomic weight of 1). This is lighter than both nitrogen
    and oxygen, which average out at 29. In other words, replacing nitrogen and
    oxygen with water vapor decreases the weight of the air in the cubic foot; that
    is, it's density decreases."

James McGinn:
The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the number of H2O molecules in the microdroplets.  What is the correct number for X?  Well, the truth is we don't know.  It is, in my opinion, most likely never smaller than 10, thus the correct number to put into this equation wouldn't be 18 it would be 180 or larger.  It is possible it might be as small as 3 in some particularly dry bodies of air, in which case it would be 54, still making moist air considerably heavier than dry air.  But even if it is only 2 the atomic weight of X, at 36, would still be heavier than that of dry air, at 29. 

So, if somebody tells you that the notion that moist air is heavier than dry air is a myth you can tell them that this myth is actually a myth.  You can also tell them that Isaac Newton was not a deity sent from heaven but a normal human being, prone to the foibles of failing to confirm his assumptions, just like the rest of us.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

Here is a link to the most viewed post in the history of usenet:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

Address my arguments you fucking fruitcakes.

  • 383

  • 3

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #49
Quote from: jimmcginn
Isaac Newton was a human being
by James McGinn

In response to:
Understanding air density and its effects
05/17/2005 - Updated 09:46 AM ET
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wdensity.htm

Was Isaac Newton omniscient?  Or was he a human being, capable of making a mistake?  I think the latter is the case.  But according to the USA Today article quoted herein you might think it the former.

The article addresses the comparative weight of moist air to dry air. It purports to identify a common misconception, that moist air is heavier than dry air. In actuality It turns out they are wrong. As most people generally assume, moist air actually is heavier than dry air. So the misconception, actually, is this notion that moist air is lighter than dry air, a notion that is foisted upon us by academia. 

According to this article, the originator of this falsehood is none other than Isaac Newton.  Apparently, in his 1717 in his book Optics Newton made a statement to this effect. The article then goes on to describe the reasoning, which I present below.  Continuing on, the article describes this erroneous notion as being, "known."  But it actually isn't known and never has been.  For something to be known it has to be tested, measured, or observed.  Or it has to be calculated based on assumptions that themselves are tested, measured, or observed.  And, apparently, that is where Newton, and all of academia hence, made an error: 

    USA Today:
    "To see why humid air is less dense than dry air, we need to turn to one
    of the laws of nature the Italian physicist Amadeo Avogadro discovered
    in the early 1800s. In simple terms, he found that a fixed volume of gas,
    say one cubic meter, at the same temperature and pressure, would
    always have the same number of molecules no matter what gas is in the
    container."

James McGinn:
This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient temperatures/pressures.  It is still liquid.  It is an evaporate, a vapor and, therefore, It consists of microdroplets of liquid H2O suspended by electro-static forces between air molecules. Often these microdroplets are very small, so small they are invisible--just as invisible as gaseous H2O (this is what confuses most of us).  All in all, there is zero evidence hat moisture in our atmosphere is mono-molecular (gaseous) and there is a wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that gaseous H2O can only exist above its boiling point, which is much higher than is available in our ambient environment.

    USA Today:
    "Most beginning chemistry books explain how this works. Imagine a cubic
    foot of perfectly dry air. It contains about 78% nitrogen molecules, which
    each have a molecular weight of 28 (2 atoms with atomic weight 14) .
    Another 21% of the air is oxygen, with each molecule having a molecular
    weight of 32 (2 atoms with atomic weight 16). The final one percent is a
    mixture of other gases, which we won't worry about. Molecules are free
    to move in and out of our cubic foot of air."

James McGinn:
Up to this point everything they are saying here is accurate.  Here is where the problem lies:

    USA Today:
    "What Avogadro discovered leads us to conclude that if we added water vapor
    molecules to our cubic foot of air, some of the nitrogen and oxygen molecules
    would leave -- remember, the total number of molecules in our cubic foot of air
    stays the same. The water molecules, which replace nitrogen or oxygen, have a
    molecular weight of 18. (One oxygen atom with atomic weight of 16, and two
    hydrogen atoms each with atomic weight of 1). This is lighter than both nitrogen
    and oxygen, which average out at 29. In other words, replacing nitrogen and
    oxygen with water vapor decreases the weight of the air in the cubic foot; that
    is, it's density decreases."

James McGinn:
The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the number of H2O molecules in the microdroplets.  What is the correct number for X?  Well, the truth is we don't know.  It is, in my opinion, most likely never smaller than 10, thus the correct number to put into this equation wouldn't be 18 it would be 180 or larger.  It is possible it might be as small as 3 in some particularly dry bodies of air, in which case it would be 54, still making moist air considerably heavier than dry air.  But even if it is only 2 the atomic weight of X, at 36, would still be heavier than that of dry air, at 29. 

So, if somebody tells you that the notion that moist air is heavier than dry air is a myth you can tell them that this myth is actually a myth.  You can also tell them that Isaac Newton was not a deity sent from heaven but a normal human being, prone to the foibles of failing to confirm his assumptions, just like the rest of us.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

Here is a link to the most viewed post in the history of usenet:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

Address my arguments you fucking fruitcakes.

Address my arguments you fucking fruitcakes.