@lapispinoza mmmm michele bachman turned her overdrive.... mmmm ya srry whut wus we on about again? Light sheens? Sheer satin shell-shells? right bbl hafta go walkies.
@lapispinoza Old Queen Mother Hubba'? Hubble's brotha-nucka? Until these louts recognize that the magic speed of light isn't quite so solid a constant we're all doomed i sez.
@lapispinoza ever tried that Calculus crap? can't truck it meself. Nope, straight Euclidean models for me, thnx. Quantifying leads to lying. Just look at light speed.
@lapispinoza if'n ya'll dun't mind too terrible like as to leave thur worship or bashing of American Angloscribes to those of us in the proper hemispheres to so do, 'twould very much enjoy pointing out that no matter how artless, establishmentarian and naively futurophilic Issac Asimov was he could still commission an engaging limerick or two to be published in his name. Back to you, Nevil Shute.
@lapispinoza [cont] called, "Can You Speak Venusian?", but also co-authored a book with the Adamski-clone and leading UFO freak of the time, Desmond Leslie. I note that the latter book seems to be missing from the Bowdlerised Wiki entry on Moore.
I can remember when Moore was scraping a living writing anything that would sell: especially his awful SF for children.
Just don't get me started on Arthur C.Clarke (the crackpot, plagiarist and paedophile).
@lapispinoza They rail against anything 'boring' that they are told, as they have always done, but modern wishy-washy sentiments fail to counter that: hence the rising tide of illiteracy and innumeracy. Never mind, the British economy consists entirely of pop-singers and footballers, doesn't it - so who cares?
Ah, the two-faced Patrick Moore? The man who is widely believed to have written a 'UFO contactee' book under the name, 'Allison'. The one who definitely wrote a skeptical book ...
@lapispinoza Of course they believe what they are told, as they have no other 'reference points'. So cretinous oafs beget cretinous oafs. And cynical religious leaders can tell children that they will go to heaven if they blow themselves up. What have you got against scientific expertise? Or do you also think that every hack writer is a Shakespeare and every sign-writer is a Da Vinci?
Perhaps you should just face the fact that real science is beyond you and stick to 'TV science' of the Cox type.
@lapispinoza [cont] accept some things as being 'set in stone'. I don't see X-Factor singers getting very far if they start questioning the validity of the chromatic scale (which is '50% physics').
As for the history of ideas, only laymen get hung up on 'who invented what': they confuse epistemology with a mere quiz show. Newton (and Einstein) are famous among laymen for a lot of things which they did not in fact discover. It is called the 'Matthew Effect' and is well known to scientists
@lapispinoza [cont] be believed. Because pseudo-experts (and especially 'maverick academics') are the problem, I pick on them. Your point seems to be that it is good to push nonsense on innocent minds so as to make them question 'received opinion'. So how is it any worse of me to make them question what constitutes fact by attacking internet cranks? It seems to me that 'questioning everything', for some people, is just an excuse not to bother to learn anything difficult. And one HAS to
@lapispinoza Got them thinking that gyroscopes really defy gravity, how is that good? That is just lying. One of the hardest things in physics teaching has always been to counteract the 'Aristotlean' concepts that laymen develop for themselves. It is becoming ever harder, due to all of the pseudo-experts active on the internet and to the general modern 'philosophy' that everyone's opinion has equal value. They don't. An equal right to express an opinion does not equate to an equal right to ...
@lapispinoza Also, you may be confusing physical laws with their practical implementation: knowing the laws does not (contrary to LaPlace) mean that one can always predict behaviour. That is why chaos theory has become so important. However, even chaotic systems have to obey the conservation laws. The rule-of-thumb for laymen is: "if a YouTube poster claims to have infringed the conservation laws, he is mad or bad". That is, he is insane or crooked/incompetent.
@lapispinoza No. Some modification is required at relativistic velocities, and perhaps over galactic distances, but that does not help YouTube demonstrators. They are never finding something new, but instead re-hashing past misconceptions. For instance, for nearly 60 years, leading 18/19th-century scientists thought that conservation of energy and conservation of momentum were incompatible concepts. I am surprised that no YouTube 'genius' has brought that old error up as an 'amazing discovery'.
Hardly misconceptions, working models exist, a patent has been applied for, there are youtube videos demonstrating the effect, no laws of Newton have been broken.
Rubbish: if the models really worked, there would be a stampede of physicists wanting to study them.
There are dozens of patents for gyroscopic levitation/propulsion machines, going back decades. All that this proves, is that the existence of a patent proves nothing.
Indeed, none of Newton's laws have been broken: that is why the machines do not work.
To those who do not already know: this is one of the most shameful episodes in the history of science popularisation. This idiot was allowed to broadcast his misconceptions to the world via the Royal Institution's Faraday Lecture. Faraday must have been spinning in his grave!
come on, he lectures to children. in our TV we have a similar series called Master N. he makes similar stuff, but i agree, he doesn't mean it so seriously and he is not a member of the royal society. however, both of them is fun to watch. ;-)
So you think that it is OK to tell children untrue things about the real world, just because the untrue thing is easier to follow, more surprising or more entertaining? Have you any idea how much trouble that causes later to educators in higher education? Children soon realise that 'fun stuff' aimed at them is not necessarily true, but things which are told to them in a more formal 'teaching' context tends to be absorbed as 'truth'.
@IdleMindx420 I have been involved in engineering and physics for over 40 years, and have been closely examining the claims of anti-gravity for over 20 years. All that I have found are people suffering from the same misunderstandings of theory, and 'backing it up' with incompetent and irreproducible demonstrations. The fact that some of those idiots had letters after their names proves only that the educational system is inadequate. I think that it is you who needs to do some research!
@lapispinoza mmmm michele bachman turned her overdrive.... mmmm ya srry whut wus we on about again? Light sheens? Sheer satin shell-shells? right bbl hafta go walkies.
BobForehead 10 months ago
@lapispinoza Old Queen Mother Hubba'? Hubble's brotha-nucka? Until these louts recognize that the magic speed of light isn't quite so solid a constant we're all doomed i sez.
BobForehead 10 months ago
@lapispinoza ever tried that Calculus crap? can't truck it meself. Nope, straight Euclidean models for me, thnx. Quantifying leads to lying. Just look at light speed.
BobForehead 11 months ago
@lapispinoza if'n ya'll dun't mind too terrible like as to leave thur worship or bashing of American Angloscribes to those of us in the proper hemispheres to so do, 'twould very much enjoy pointing out that no matter how artless, establishmentarian and naively futurophilic Issac Asimov was he could still commission an engaging limerick or two to be published in his name. Back to you, Nevil Shute.
BobForehead 11 months ago
@lapispinoza [cont] called, "Can You Speak Venusian?", but also co-authored a book with the Adamski-clone and leading UFO freak of the time, Desmond Leslie. I note that the latter book seems to be missing from the Bowdlerised Wiki entry on Moore.
I can remember when Moore was scraping a living writing anything that would sell: especially his awful SF for children.
Just don't get me started on Arthur C.Clarke (the crackpot, plagiarist and paedophile).
If you want to get even: I liked Gardner
flowerbower 11 months ago
@lapispinoza They rail against anything 'boring' that they are told, as they have always done, but modern wishy-washy sentiments fail to counter that: hence the rising tide of illiteracy and innumeracy. Never mind, the British economy consists entirely of pop-singers and footballers, doesn't it - so who cares?
Ah, the two-faced Patrick Moore? The man who is widely believed to have written a 'UFO contactee' book under the name, 'Allison'. The one who definitely wrote a skeptical book ...
flowerbower 11 months ago
@lapispinoza Of course they believe what they are told, as they have no other 'reference points'. So cretinous oafs beget cretinous oafs. And cynical religious leaders can tell children that they will go to heaven if they blow themselves up. What have you got against scientific expertise? Or do you also think that every hack writer is a Shakespeare and every sign-writer is a Da Vinci?
Perhaps you should just face the fact that real science is beyond you and stick to 'TV science' of the Cox type.
flowerbower 11 months ago
@lapispinoza [cont] accept some things as being 'set in stone'. I don't see X-Factor singers getting very far if they start questioning the validity of the chromatic scale (which is '50% physics').
As for the history of ideas, only laymen get hung up on 'who invented what': they confuse epistemology with a mere quiz show. Newton (and Einstein) are famous among laymen for a lot of things which they did not in fact discover. It is called the 'Matthew Effect' and is well known to scientists
flowerbower 11 months ago
@lapispinoza [cont] be believed. Because pseudo-experts (and especially 'maverick academics') are the problem, I pick on them. Your point seems to be that it is good to push nonsense on innocent minds so as to make them question 'received opinion'. So how is it any worse of me to make them question what constitutes fact by attacking internet cranks? It seems to me that 'questioning everything', for some people, is just an excuse not to bother to learn anything difficult. And one HAS to
flowerbower 11 months ago
@lapispinoza Got them thinking that gyroscopes really defy gravity, how is that good? That is just lying. One of the hardest things in physics teaching has always been to counteract the 'Aristotlean' concepts that laymen develop for themselves. It is becoming ever harder, due to all of the pseudo-experts active on the internet and to the general modern 'philosophy' that everyone's opinion has equal value. They don't. An equal right to express an opinion does not equate to an equal right to ...
flowerbower 11 months ago
@lapispinoza Not at all: I despise only sciolists but, in the case of YouTube, it amounts to the same thing, lol
flowerbower 11 months ago
@lapispinoza Also, you may be confusing physical laws with their practical implementation: knowing the laws does not (contrary to LaPlace) mean that one can always predict behaviour. That is why chaos theory has become so important. However, even chaotic systems have to obey the conservation laws. The rule-of-thumb for laymen is: "if a YouTube poster claims to have infringed the conservation laws, he is mad or bad". That is, he is insane or crooked/incompetent.
flowerbower 11 months ago
@lapispinoza No. Some modification is required at relativistic velocities, and perhaps over galactic distances, but that does not help YouTube demonstrators. They are never finding something new, but instead re-hashing past misconceptions. For instance, for nearly 60 years, leading 18/19th-century scientists thought that conservation of energy and conservation of momentum were incompatible concepts. I am surprised that no YouTube 'genius' has brought that old error up as an 'amazing discovery'.
flowerbower 11 months ago
sigh
deaftodd 3 years ago
DUDE! did you not see? it was just a normal gyro balancing on a pice of string sliding down. although there are gyro powered devices.
DaleSparrow 3 years ago 2
LOL YES
essence324 3 years ago
...such as the gyro-powered vehicle in Switzerland, as referred to near the end of Laithwaite's lecture.
okayillgonow 2 years ago
Hardly misconceptions, working models exist, a patent has been applied for, there are youtube videos demonstrating the effect, no laws of Newton have been broken.
lukewarmdog 4 years ago
Rubbish: if the models really worked, there would be a stampede of physicists wanting to study them.
There are dozens of patents for gyroscopic levitation/propulsion machines, going back decades. All that this proves, is that the existence of a patent proves nothing.
Indeed, none of Newton's laws have been broken: that is why the machines do not work.
flowerbower 3 years ago
To those who do not already know: this is one of the most shameful episodes in the history of science popularisation. This idiot was allowed to broadcast his misconceptions to the world via the Royal Institution's Faraday Lecture. Faraday must have been spinning in his grave!
flowerbower 4 years ago
come on, he lectures to children. in our TV we have a similar series called Master N. he makes similar stuff, but i agree, he doesn't mean it so seriously and he is not a member of the royal society. however, both of them is fun to watch. ;-)
undokat 3 years ago
So you think that it is OK to tell children untrue things about the real world, just because the untrue thing is easier to follow, more surprising or more entertaining? Have you any idea how much trouble that causes later to educators in higher education? Children soon realise that 'fun stuff' aimed at them is not necessarily true, but things which are told to them in a more formal 'teaching' context tends to be absorbed as 'truth'.
flowerbower 3 years ago
Honestly, your a idiot.
Do a little research for god sake.
IdleMindx420 1 year ago
@IdleMindx420 I have been involved in engineering and physics for over 40 years, and have been closely examining the claims of anti-gravity for over 20 years. All that I have found are people suffering from the same misunderstandings of theory, and 'backing it up' with incompetent and irreproducible demonstrations. The fact that some of those idiots had letters after their names proves only that the educational system is inadequate. I think that it is you who needs to do some research!
flowerbower 1 year ago