Sentences with phrase «physics was wrong on»

Not exact matches

Physics - lite @ CN77 & Andrew Andrew's Quote «It's not all that pointless, see while you would never be convinced that your bronze age mythological beliefs about the creation of the universe are wrong, since I can rebut (with peer reviewed journal articles no less) any claim you make, in rather stunning detail, those who are not so well versed on the subject who read the dialogue could be swayed to the side of science.

«This is definitely the wrong move,» asserts Hitoshi Murayama, a theoretical physicist at University of California (UC), Berkeley, and the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe at the University of Tokyo, who has worked with NSF's Tokyo office on events for graduate students and U.S. scientists in Japan.

It's so tough to accept the little bit of good (decent graphics, OK number of cool vehicles and tracks) that is mixed with so much that's wrong (physics from hell, semi-broken control, insulting soundtrack) in a driving engine that, with proper care, could have been a contender instead of a bump on the road.

While the physics issues aren't as apparent in puzzle sequences, since the game was clearly designed for them, you're still playing a platformer, and a missed jump at the wrong time means a restart from the checkpoint... and this can get extremely frustrating, because while the puzzles themselves are clever and fun, the platforming physics are not, and the gameplay working depends on both of those.

I believe that it would be wrong to condemn natural cycles as unacceptable because it is not based directly on physics.

Oliver here is saying that they're wrong and heavier elements are found in the sun, which obviously is working, hence we don't really have a full grasp on physics yet.

It is not based on physics, it is a shortcut used in the late 1970s when they were still trying to work out the theory and they have stubbornly stuck with it, even though it is physically wrong.

Newtonian physics is largely correct, and was an amazing advance in its time, but some predictions were wrong and required modification by relativity, such as in the famous Michelson — Morley experiment — and that's fine until your policy is that rocketry calculations should be based on the presence of luminiferous aether.

Climate pseudo-science is wrong on physics, biology, meteorology, mathematics, computer sciences, and almost everything else.

The foundation of its ontology is wrong, the foundation of its physics is non-existent, thus, none of its alarmist claims which are directly based on that false ontology can be correct.

A. do more climate research, starting with verifiable experimental physics B. encourage R&D in technologies to reduce man's impact on the earth C. encourage R&D in technologies to reduce earth's impact on man D. ignore long - term predictions, which are all wrong

I try to imagine what the reaction would be if physicists in another (non-climate) area — say, quantum computing — were to hold a conference, and physicists from yet another area — let's say, high - energy nuclear physics — were to show up at their conferences and tell them, without having read up carefully on quantum computing, and lacking the knowledge to make substantive criticisms of the mainstream views in that field (beyond, perhaps, superficial ones that had already been exhaustively addressed and refuted in the quantum computing literature), that they had it all wrong.

I'd suggest that both are almost certainly untrue in general, even though there may well be some climate science that is bullshit and some climate scientists that are idiots, and in any event, getting the basic physics you're trying to call them on wrong simply destroys your own credibility as a reasoning participant in the debate.

On your physics you're just wrong, no confusion about it.

Is that «settled» well, it could be wrong, but when faced with the mountain of evidence, when faced with the amount of physics that will have to be redone if its wrong, I make the PRAGMATIC decision that is more fruitful to accept this «as settled» and Build on it, rather than expending the effort to disprove iIs that «settled» well, it could be wrong, but when faced with the mountain of evidence, when faced with the amount of physics that will have to be redone if its wrong, I make the PRAGMATIC decision that is more fruitful to accept this «as settled» and Build on it, rather than expending the effort to disprove iis more fruitful to accept this «as settled» and Build on it, rather than expending the effort to disprove it.

Carrick, there is wrong in interesting ways, as people have said Lindzen often is, and there is wrong on basic physics which is uninteresting except in the psychology of those who pursue that view.

But if you don't UNDERSTAND the physics I have explained, then why dabble in comments on climate blogs when you don't have the necessary knowledge to know what's right or wrong?

Perhaps this is the source of Dyson's dreadful misjudgment on the climate question: he sees that the possible errors are large, but does not factor in that they are likely to be large in the wrong direction, and does not credit obvious qualitative arguments from simple laws of physics.»

Thus the existing theories based on Sagan's physics are wrong which is the main reason Climate Alchemy is in such a mess with the ludicrous claim that polluted clouds hide AGW.

How do you bridge a divide with attendees like Steven Goddard (who believes that it snows dry ice in antarctica therefore proving all textbooks on physical chemistry wrong, and that arctic sea ice volume is drastically increasing), or Tallbloke (who rejects the last 90 - ish years of physics, starting with Einstein, and insists that the ether is real), etc etc?

And if this process of water changing state, which is pretty much just a process of physics and a bit of chemistry, is so very easy to get wrong — specifically, is so easy to model too conservatively so the models predict wrongly that it will be a very slow process when in fact it seems to be a much faster process — how confident can we be that other models and estimates of processes that involve multiple feedbacks that include chemical and biological interactions as well as physical ones aren't even more wildly inaccurate on the «conservative» side?

Why would you jump to the conclusion that the physics textbooks are wrong on a very fundamental and basic matter of physics and that the scientific consensus is wrong in using equations that have been tested by scientists and engineers and used to build all sorts of technology rather than acknowledge that your own knowledge may be what is limited here?

Joel Shore said on Visualizing the «Greenhouse Effect» — Light and Heat May 14, 2011 at 6:55 pm Why do you believe your conception of the Second Law is correct and the conception of physicists, who actually work intimately with it and understand its derivation from statistical physics principles, is wrong?

While I have my own area of technical knowledge, including some basic physics and biology, it does not extend to the core science of AGW, and so I make no direct comment on it, other than to say it has been one of the most intensely studied and debated scientific issues in history and I find it difficult to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists have got it completely wrong.

There have of course been some bad / wrong explanations which aren't based on obs or physics, but mere curve - fitting, but those are pretty obviously rubbish and are being ignored or refuted in the literature.

These indicate that the saturation idea is plain wrong, which also is wrong on just its physics.

Guys; don't get me wrong about laser physics cause its not what I'm on about other than seems it's a big area of instrument and measurement systems research these days and you should too should wonder why.

I think you're wrong in your description of climate models; to a large degree they are based on fundamental physics, such as radiativetransfer.