quote:

Originally posted by ******** Personal questions were asked. personal responses given - so said debates with me tend to go this way from ground in which to make a point is devestated, my opponents resort to underhanded lies and personal attacks as is ever so common, this is just one example of krypton attacking the person rather than the facts, and you in tow.

I focus on your irrational logic; not surprised you interpret that as a personal attack.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** foul. First off I've probably been reading science since before you opted the left side of your mommies falopian tube. Second If only physists are allowed to comment on this - would the PhD's kindly start making comments? I am/was also a member of the Waterloo Space Society so there is the option of osmosis to awsomeness.

I believe your mother dropped you as an infant.

Waterloo Space Society -- that made me lol.

___________________

quote:

Posted by Omega_Blue that's it, fuck it i'm quitting ta forever. fuck if i'm gonna get trolled by fucking yukii. dammit!

quote:

Originally posted by ******** I'd say if this were up to a jury in America it'd likely be seen as the truth, if it were up to a jury in Russia it may be circumspect.

where do you get this drivel? facts are facts regardless of which courtroom you might hear them in, there are no cultural biases colouring the evidence. the very fact that the russians were keenly watching the americans land on the moon is something you clowns don't seem to appreciate.

i enjoy many of your weird posts but when you try to apply your alternative thinking methods to a subject like this one you just make yourself look like a cretin.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i enjoy many of your weird posts but when you try to apply your alternative thinking methods to a subject like this one you just make yourself look like a cretin.

+1

___________________

quote:

Posted by Omega_Blue that's it, fuck it i'm quitting ta forever. fuck if i'm gonna get trolled by fucking yukii. dammit!

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Science is theory engineering is objective.

is it possible though that you can't have "objective" engineering without science? maybe even vice versa?

quote:

Originally posted by ******** what type of fucking question is that, do you work for NASA?

You took high school physics. Whoop dee fucking doo.

quote:

What have I said you don't beleive? Do your own fucking research if you doubt me.

Pretty much EVERYTHING. I did my own research, not using USENET...

quote:

Proove me wrong don't make me proove me right, I know what the fuck I'm talking about, and until new information is made available, the onus is on you to disproove me, likewise me to disproove your statements that I think are horseshit. Just saying nooo isn't disprooving anything it is just saying talk to the hand, I'm an ignorant fuckface.

I did prove you wrong, but then you pull this shit out..

"bad answer the correct answer would be there was fiber and polyethyline shielding - metals will actually make worse the effects of the belt. Wrong again it was not on a the best trajectory, it was not on the worst trajectory though."

and started talking about "social facts". Please read this and let it sink in...it means you're wrong on every count.

quote:

The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[56], pp. 160–162 The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and a half. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[67] However, only twenty-four astronauts left Earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions. Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing "Hoax", Dr. Philip Plait, John Wiley & Sons, 2002. ISBN 0-471-40976-6. See esp. chapter 17. W. David Woods, How Apollo Flew to the Moon, 2008, Springer, ISBN 978-0-387-71675-6, p. 109 See Ms. Irene Schneider on the November 20, 2005 episode of The Space Show Patrick L. Barry. "Blinding Flashes". Science.nasa.gov. Retrieved on 2008-11-25.

I'm not sure someone who thinks North Korea is a great place to live is really going to understand...:rollseyes:

quote:

If you read what I"ve posted and have basic knoweldge you should understand the really mean comsic ray and such particles will turn metal to a mound of death. There is a threshold of sheilding and heavier atoms are not better. Do I need to turn this into a physics lesson? Why not state why I am incorrect, how is that.

READ MY POST GOD DAMMIT. You clearly don't know jack shit about physics or the radiation belt.

quote:

Dude I wasn't making a citation - I was giving an example by referencing the existence of something. A source referance to a source I referenced is very much as valid as any other primary source reference you idiot. If I make a statement about your grocery list and source that it is very much valid, regardless of the contents of kgs of bacon in there.

No citations? Then please stop posting untrue statements as fact without a citation.

quote:

Sorry no. I havn't chosen side a or side b, there arn't always only two sides to a posit.

Yes you have chosen a side. Otherwise, you'd have stfu by now.

quote:

Science is theory engineering is objective.

FFS, another retarded sentence that makes no bloody sense. You took high school physics, but not english?

___________________

********, you're full of shit.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** As far as I am aware, yes. This always attracts females like flies.

i hope the woman you settle down with will love you a lot for who you are (i think she's the perfect one): http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...4&forumid=16&s=

___________________

quote:

Posted by Omega_Blue that's it, fuck it i'm quitting ta forever. fuck if i'm gonna get trolled by fucking yukii. dammit!

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Scientists can have objectives, and these objectives can be met by experimentation - but research is not science, research uses science as a method - it is called the scientific method - it allows theories to be created based on evidence. So basically no you are grasping there is a line and science will always be theory, engineering will always be implementation of that theory. This does not mean science cannot be used to acheive an objective but science itself is not the objective.

you realize youre entire argument confuses the word "objective", right?

objectivity is the essence science. so if "engineering will always be implementation of that theory", then it is essentially an extention of that objectivity.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** lol I find it hilarious when discussions get down to aruguments over the "spirit of the word" and I can cite people but I have no fucking clue what they are saying. lol. Objective to me is when one sets out to do something. Regardless science is theory - godlike theory for most of the mondern world. but still theory, practical and accepted as fundamental truth. Fact is, it is theory dervived from testing - but the whole if it works then it works, close enough - the future is the same in the past and other undeniable truths. Fact is that is a metaphysical beleif, and not all cultures have held this to be true. None the less - you still fail to attack points. It is hard to have a discussion if you don't explain yourself well enough to be understood. Fact is, 1. 1 in 4 people in britain and russia (polled) don't beleive in the moon landing as real. 3 in 50 don't in the US. 2. Plastics such as polyurethane stopped high energy radiation - i.e. cosmic rays, and does so better than heavy metals. 3. Science is theory and fundamentally will be nothing more, even though true people see science as religion and absolute truth, rather than numbers worked out by physisists who ran many tests to calibrate algorythms to define timespace interactions. There is no real ceiling to science other than measurement - and there is even less of a cieling for reality itself. Practically of course this differs.

im srsly trying to understand you - are you saying science is incapable of empiricism?

quote:

Originally posted by ******** lol I find it hilarious when discussions get down to aruguments over the "spirit of the word" and I can cite people but I have no fucking clue what they are saying. lol. Objective to me is when one sets out to do something.

I guess that answers your question about him passing High School english. He IS Canadian though, so maybe he was in French immersion?

ANYway, I bolded the correct use of the word, as it pertains to this discussion, just to help you out with your ridiculous babbling ashley, give this a quick read and feel educated for a change.:

ob⋅jec⋅tive
  /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA
Use objective in a Sentence
–noun
1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.
2. Grammar.
a. Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles.
b. a word in that case.
3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics. (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera.
–adjective
4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Now put those shrooms down for a few days and let your brain recover.

Fuck.

___________________
Captain Planet is gey.
Water, Fire, Earth, Wind, Heart???
These forces are supposed to combine to create Captain Planet?
Bullshit.
Those forces combine to create a soaking, boiling mudstorm on Valentine's Day.