super atoms

[Harvey]

II am not a climatologist, but I am a scientist.

I'm not a climatologist, but I am an engineer, and nothing in your unsupported statements, and nothing at your questionable links convinces me that you or those at your links know jack about the subject.

I don't know what Palin has to do with this discussion (other than a lame attempt to marginalize me) but I can assure you I will make no wild statements about dinosaurs and man hanging around together.

That's nice. I thought that since she's as much an idiot on the subject of global warming, you might find her nonsensical views on other subjects compelling, as well.

Your argument seems more based on emotion than fact. And that's fine, there's much worse things you could be passionate about than the environment. And for the record, I"m very much in favor of sensible conservation and keeping our environment as clean as we can, but reasonable measures could accomplish this without a chicken-little mentality.

Clue -- The consensus of vast majority of climatologists is that global warming is a problem that COULD have catastrophic consequenses. In other words, metaphorically, the sky may actually be falling.

I submit that there are so many up sides, economically, ecologically and socially, to investing in understanding it and developing means to combat it and, IF you are wrong, so grave a down side to ignoring it or even putting it on a back burner, that it makes absolutely no sense not to pursue it.

OTOH, if you're wrong, you won't have to worry about anyone being around to tell you how stupid you were... AFTER the fact.

 

[William Gaatjes]

William, I really don't mean this as a flame. But you remind me of one of those scientists that "believes" in global warming. You just have a itch, and it must be true! To hell with empirical evidence, two phenomena exist there must be a correlation!

The fun part is i am not a scientist but an engineer in electronics with a wide background. Because of this wide background i am able to not just look at a subject from more then one point of view. Luckily this is nature to me. And finally this starts to work out for me in my life. The thing is it sometimes seems that some scientists ( not doubting how incredible good they) are occasionally limited to a certain view. That view may be right, but it is like a spotlight in the dark. You only see and use what you can see in the spotlight. I am not doubting their expertise , not at all. However, i am sure that a lot of discovers and scientist have a itch, are laughed at and years later it seems to be true when a scientist with the right education but not with a limited view finds out what...

When it comes to global warming i have a very simple point of view.
Global Warming advocates forget the effects of the planets, stars cosmic radiation and more around us. I do not believe we are directly responsible for warming up the planet. There are many reasons why this planet warms up and cools down. And i do think we could in certain scenario's with our pollution could cause the balance to shift in a direction that is negative for us. However, i do believe we are responsible for pollution. We are polluting out greed, not because we do not have solutions. And that is something we have to do something against. Time to work now, i will follow up later on if
i have to add something.

It is my opinion we are part of the eco system called planet earth. Although the earth will go on with out us, we for at least today cannot go on with out the earth with present technology and assumptions. It goes way further then just breathing air...

 

[DominionSeraph]

The fun part is i am not a scientist but an engineer in electronics with a wide background. Because of this wide background i am able to not just look at a subject from one point of view. Luckily this is nature to me. And finally this starts to work out for me in my life. The thing is it sometimes seems that some scientists ( not doubting how incredible good they) are occasionally limited to a certain view. That view may be right, but it is like a spotlight in the dark.

But it is your view that is limited because your horrible methodology doesn't demand expansion. You have no mental discipline whatsoever. All you do is take an idea, rotate it around, then make basic fit check with other ideas. When you find that initial match, you're supposed to broaden the scope of the argument to check fit along other axes, looking for a way to disprove the hypothesis. But you don't do this. You don't do even do the most basic regulation of your leaps between ideas. Instead you come here and puke those initial "feelings" out onto the discussion table and expect everyone else to sift through it, taking these feelings as well-vetted conclusions.
They aren't. It's obvious that there's no scientific rigor behind them. And that leaves us with a social problem, because you are doing it wrong.

Here, start with the basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

This is why we need such rigor: the human brain simply cannot be trusted in its default configuration. Sloppy thinking leads to mystical thinking, and at THAT point you're juggling massive errors as premises. You seem to be at that point, evidenced by your apparent assignment of magical vagueness to carbon and various physics concepts.

You're suffering from a systemic error. Apply yourself to fixing it.

Edit:
I mean, really:

Simple set of questions you can ask :
Why do you try to be the best person you can be ?
Because you expect something in return or because it is the best thing to do ?

By definition being good because you want to be in heaven makes you not the best person you can be. Because it is fear that drives you...

Do you not know that valuations are subjective?
What does the moon think is best? It doesn't think at all, therefore it doesn't think anything is best. So, how can there be, "best, by definition," when there is something to which nothing is best?

Do you not see that with valuations being subjective that the very meanings to your questions can vary widely? "Good" and "best" are dependent on the valuation scheme, so your questions on their own do not define any logical space. There's nothing solid there with which to corner anyone.

Honestly, that quote is the worst excuse for logic I've ever seen. Besides the false foundational assumption regarding the requisite valuation structure, you appear to have used 'best' equivocally and then didn't even perform a valid operation on the equivocation.

That's just an example that there's something very wrong with your thinking patterns.

 

[William Gaatjes]

But it is your view that is limited because your horrible methodology doesn't demand expansion. You have no mental discipline whatsoever. All you do is take an idea, rotate it around, then make basic fit check with other ideas. When you find that initial match, you're supposed to broaden the scope of the argument to check fit along other axes, looking for a way to disprove the hypothesis. But you don't do this. You don't do even do the most basic regulation of your leaps between ideas. Instead you come here and puke those initial "feelings" out onto the discussion table and expect everyone else to sift through it, taking these feelings as well-vetted conclusions.
They aren't. It's obvious that there's no scientific rigor behind them. And that leaves us with a social problem, because you are doing it wrong.

Here, start with the basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

This is why we need such rigor: the human brain simply cannot be trusted in its default configuration. Sloppy thinking leads to mystical thinking, and at THAT point you're juggling massive errors as premises. You seem to be at that point, evidenced by your apparent assignment of magical vagueness to carbon and various physics concepts.

You're suffering from a systemic error. Apply yourself to fixing it.

Edit:
I mean, really:


Do you not know that valuations are subjective?
What does the moon think is best? It doesn't think at all, therefore it doesn't think anything is best. So, how can there be, "best, by definition," when there is something to which nothing is best?

Extra EDIT :

First come up with some examples making sense. The moon does not think. Therefor best is not a word to use for the moon. The moon just is. And from a certain view (by a conscious mind) it can have a good effect on a specific situation or a bad effect on a specific situation.
Therefore , your comment is >> NULL.

Second, I am a very realistic person, i come up with an idea and i do not mind if it is shot down by cold hard facts, cold hard facts just the way i like it. But nothing is put forward... It seems. You are a prime example, I feel like i am in a president election. Instead of cold hard facts and answers , you attack my opinion without facts. What is the next thing, you are going to hire a private investigator to dig into my personal life and have your rant on something i did wrong ? Please go do something useful ,you waste your time.

Do you not see that with valuations being subjective that the very meanings to your questions can vary widely? "Good" and "best" are dependent on the valuation scheme, so your questions on their own do not define any logical space. There's nothing solid there with which to corner anyone.

Honestly, that quote is the worst excuse for logic I've ever seen. Besides the false foundational assumption regarding the requisite valuation structure, you appear to have used 'best' equivocally and then didn't even perform a valid operation on the equivocation.

That's just an example that there's something very wrong with your thinking patterns.

Ah , it is kick William day because we have nothing better to do ?

Just a question out of curiousity, does your response has anything to do with my recent postings on dailytech ? You kind of fit the description. You say that i just have a opinion, And you try to convince me that i should not have that opinion but that i should only believe what you think ? Please, this is a technical forum, Give me facts when i am wrong and i will admit that i am wrong and you have the right answer. When it is just your opinion against mine , i will just send all your writings to my NULL device. When i write an idea, it is just that an idea. And since most idea's are about subjects that are not proven today, i feel free to release my idea's in the wild. When i come up with something, and someone has actual prove why it could not work, i am all ears. Because it was just an idea. And i learned something interesting in what ever way.



Another thing, i use simple logic, that can be applied to anyone because my personal values and idea's are left out. I just look what works for a lot of people with total different views on life and how they live their lives.

That's why :

Originally Posted by William Gaatjes
Simple set of questions you can ask :
Why do you try to be the best person you can be ?
Because you expect something in return or because it is the best thing to do ?

By definition being good because you want to be in heaven makes you not the best person you can be. Because it is fear that drives you...

This is the painful truth. You want something in return.

The best priests, nuns, monks, iman's and "plain" people from whatever religion or no religion, do something totally for the best of other people. Without expecting something back. They just feel it is the right thing to do. If they would believe they go to hell or not. And that is what is important. Sacrifice. And having faith that people are good and born without sin !
I am an atheist but this is easy for me to see. Afcourse there also exist religious people who stay only in "check" because they want to go to heaven. And it is not because they are hardwired to think this way, no it is a conscious choice.

 

[DominionSeraph]

First come up with some examples making sense. The moon does not think.

Negation of the verb negates any products resulting from the verb. That makes it a great example of the absence of the verbal product.

Second, I am a very realistic person, i come up with an idea and i do not mind if it is shot down by cold hard facts, cold hard facts just the way i like it. But nothing is put forward... It seems. You are a prime example, I feel like i am in a president election. Instead of cold hard facts and answers , you attack my opinion without facts.

Beliefs must be supported. Yours has no support WHATSOEVER. It's an insult for you to come in and act as though these unsupported beliefs mean anything. Why would I limit myself to your conclusion when to do so would be to ignore this insult, which would allow you to remain clueless as to its existence, which would mean you would not have the information required to self-correct, meaning these insults would likely continue?
The insult presented by your lack of rigor must be dealt with. It results in stupid conclusions, and to be hammered by your stupidity on daily basis would be a tiring affair; so fix the underlying stupidity.

Ah , it is kick William day because we have nothing better to do ?

Pain is a good motivator. Use it to your benefit.
Or you can just whine about it. In which case you'll be kicked some more in an attempt to motivate you to stop whining.

Just a question out of curiousity, does your response has anything to do with my recent postings on dailytech ?

No. Haven't noticed you at all.

You kind of fit the description. You say that i just have a opinion, And you try to convince me that i should not have that opinion but that i should only believe what you think ?

Conclusions are just basic calculation. Method is what matters.

Please, this is a technical forum,

And this is technical. If your conclusions were simply a case of GIGO, well, that's not a failure of the technology. But your Garbage Output appears to be the result of an internal error in programming. Thus the debugging effort.

Give me facts when i am wrong and i will admit that i am wrong and you have the right answer.

It doesn't matter whether or not you happen to be right.
If you read a stopped clock, there's a 1/720 chance of being right. Arguing over whether each instance happens to be right or wrong would be a waste of effort, though. It's a far better use of resources to just get you to fix your clock.

When it is just your opinion against mine , i will just send all your writings to my NULL device.

I rather expected you'd have defenses preventing you from considering that you might be wrong. It's really the only way you could've gotten this bad.

When i write an idea, it is just that an idea. And since most idea's are about subjects that are not proven today, i feel free to release my idea's in the wild. When i come up with something, and someone has actual prove why it could not work, i am all ears.

Have some common courtesy and stop. Saying stupid things for no reason is just retarded.

OP: "Hey look guys, I just thought that maybe 2+3=23! What do you all think?"

Post #2:
"5"

Post #3:
"5. Maybe CycloWizard will take the time to explain it to you"

Post #4:

"5. Maybe CycloWizard will take the time to explain it to you"

+1

Post #5:
"William's at it again."

 

[William Gaatjes]

Negation of the verb negates any products resulting from the verb. That makes it a great example of the absence of the verbal product.

Still i hear only blah blah. Come with a good argument.

Beliefs must be supported. Yours has no support WHATSOEVER. It's an insult for you to come in and act as though these unsupported beliefs mean anything. Why would I limit myself to your conclusion when to do so would be to ignore this insult, which would allow you to remain clueless as to its existence, which would mean you would not have the information required to self-correct, meaning these insults would likely continue?
The insult presented by your lack of rigor must be dealt with. It results in stupid conclusions, and to be hammered by your stupidity on daily basis would be a tiring affair; so fix the underlying stupidity.

Ah when enough people believe , it must be true ?

Pain is a good motivator. Use it to your benefit.
Or you can just whine about it. In which case you'll be kicked some more in an attempt to motivate you to stop whining.

To think that you can afflict anything on me , is amusing.
You just rant. You could for example very well have a PS3 VS XBOX 360 or XBOX360 VS PS3 rant. While i just admire both devices when looking at used technologies. Which is my interest, as is with history.

I am amused very much but you start to get boring quickly as well. I am going to ignore you after this post.

No. Haven't noticed you at all.

A very funny coincidence then that 2 people with similar ways of expression both tell me i am biased. While if would have read my writings properly, you could tell i am against people who force their dogma upon others. If it works for you, shared but do not force it upon other people. I share, i do not force.
I give a choice, not an ultimatum.

Conclusions are just basic calculation. Method is what matters.

And this is technical. If your conclusions were simply a case of GIGO, well, that's not a failure of the technology. But your Garbage Output appears to be the result of an internal error in programming. Thus the debugging effort.

It doesn't matter whether or not you happen to be right.
If you read a stopped clock, there's a 1/720 chance of being right. Arguing over whether each instance happens to be right or wrong would be a waste of effort, though. It's a far better use of resources to just get you to fix your clock.

You live way to much in your own closed environment.
Fresh impulses you need, to be able to clarify what you think...
And don't quote my posted idea's, for if i would know all details i would not type them for fun and interest here.

I rather expected you'd have defenses preventing you from considering that you might be wrong. It's really the only way you could've gotten this bad.

Have some common courtesy and stop. Saying stupid things for no reason is just retarded.

OP: "Hey look guys, I just thought that maybe 2+3=23! What do you all think?"

Post #2:
"5"

Post #3:
"5. Maybe CycloWizard will take the time to explain it to you"

Post #4:

+1

Post #5:
"William's at it again."

Rant rant, rant. Go start doing something useful...

 

[PlasmaBomb]

This thread is back again?

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
I sure hope cyclowizard does not respond, his writings are not interesting to read. Seems to me more of a flamewar kind of person. Nothing to learn form...
Really? That is a shame because I was going to share a paper I wrote detailing the role of structure-property relationships in protein solutions. Oh well. I guess HT will be stuck with your nonsensical ramblings rather than anything highly technical.

I would say : "enlighten us with your knowledge oh great one !"

I could say : "Get off your high horse".
But i do not. Continue to sit on your shetland pony. It suits you.

Quote:
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. " --Eleanor Roosevelt

Maybe this will mean something to you.

It means you just called yourself a small mind...

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
Discussing cyclowizard

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Discussing an idea

CycloWizard > William, by your own "pen" no less...

 

[William Gaatjes]

This thread is back again?



It means you just called yourself a small mind...





CycloWizard > William, by your own "pen" no less...

I see what you want to say with your post, Plasmabomb...

You are very right indeed. I lowered my self to a level i should not have allowed... I will only post in this thread from now on new discoveries about super atoms. If these discoveries make my initial idea more plausible or if these discoveries direct my idea to NULL...

 

[DominionSeraph]

Still i hear only blah blah.

No, you hear genius. You just lack the resources to interpret it.

If X is a necessary precondition for Y; the absence of X means that Y lacks the necessary precondition for existence. Thus, not Y.

Come with a good argument.

You've agreed with the premises and the inference is valid.

Wow, you are really bad at this.

Ah when enough people believe , it must be true ?

This doesn't follow from anything I've said.

Blindly attacking with non sequiturs is not a particularly good defense mechanism.

To think that you can afflict anything on me , is amusing.

You've already complained about being kicked. The affect is sufficiently demonstrated.

You could for example very well have a PS3 VS XBOX 360 or XBOX360 VS PS3 rant.

0_o

I don't think you fully grasp the meaning of, "versus."

I am amused very much but you start to get boring quickly as well. I am going to ignore you after this post.

Your loss. My gain.

A very funny coincidence then that 2 people with similar ways of expression both tell me i am biased.

Two people tell a person who's patently suffering from systemic processing errors that he's biased. Wow, how could such a thing happen? [/sarcasm]

Try reading this thread. You've been called an idiot more than twice.

While if would have read my writings properly, you could tell i am against people who force their dogma upon others. If it works for you, shared but do not force it upon other people. I share, i do not force.
I give a choice, not an ultimatum.

This isn't even English.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I mentioned once a liquid state in this thread.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100215101014.htm

No it has nothing to with it, yet...

Scientists believe that a plasma of quarks and gluons existed a few microseconds after the birth of the universe, before cooling and condensing to form the protons and neutrons that make up all the matter around us -- from individual atoms to stars, planets, and people. Although the matter produced at RHIC survives for much less than a billionth of a trillionth of a second, its properties can be determined using RHIC's highly sophisticated detectors to look at the thousands of particles emitted during its brief lifetime. The measurements provide new insights into Nature's strongest force -- in essence, what holds all the protons and neutrons of the universe together.

Predictions made prior to RHIC's initial operations in 2000 expected that the quark-gluon plasma would exist as a gas. But surprising and definitive data from RHIC's first three years of operation, presented by RHIC scientists in April 2005, showed that the matter produced at RHIC behaves as a liquid, whose constituent particles interact very strongly among themselves. This liquid matter has been described as nearly "perfect" in the sense that it flows with almost no frictional resistance, or viscosity. Such a "perfect" liquid doesn't fit with the picture of "free" quarks and gluons physicists had previously used to describe QGP.

One day i will fly away ... Looking back at yesterday.... ^_^