- Joined
- Mar 1, 2012
- Messages
- 46
This is exciting, more exciting than the eclipse, I have 50 lbs. of pins waiting for the Sledge.
Out of all the scientists and innovators that work hard on extending our knowledge very few are consistently pilloried and reviled and mocked. Out of the 835 Nobel prize winners since 1901, how many have been? Sure, there have been a few and nothing else is expected, in the few cases when there is a paradigm shift in science there is a hard battle of convincing other scientists of the validity of the new model. But never is the argument used that I'm mocked therefore I'm right.spaceships said:Guys
If it's one thing that we can learn from history it's that innovators are consistently pilloried and reviled and mocked. You can find a list as long as your arm of famous inventors who went through this, and of course equally a list as long as your arm of inventors and innovators who were never successful.
Rather than take the approach of writing off the things that Mod is saying "out of hand" I prefer to take the higher ground until it is proven one way or another.
Let's see the test data first, at which point we'll see where it stands and who had the right viewpoint.
Jon
kazamir said:This is exciting, more exciting than the eclipse, I have 50 lbs. of pins waiting for the Sledge.
The man deserves to be heard. I'll give him credit for trying! The outcome is a different story, but he should have the chance to plead his theory.
Geo said:Ridicule is kind of strong. I would say constructive criticism at the most.
spaceships said:Geo said:Ridicule is kind of strong. I would say constructive criticism at the most.
Humour me Geo and point out the constructive criticism in the two comments below please? It's a genuine question because I'm honestly struggling to see it.
Firstly "I would call this useless as it is for the forum at large. Nothing to see here folks, move on!"
Then "Goran I had the same thing typed up but thought a moderates should say it. So thank you for saying it this is just forum clutter.
We should take guesses on the chemistry though for fun."
I would call this useless as it is for the forum at large. Nothing to see here folks, move on!
spaceships said:Hehe Bjorn that's a good perspective to take. I like it. 8) 8)
I will bow to your better judgement mate. :lol:
I stand by my comments, but you only cited the last line where I summed up my feelings. To be fair I think you should read all I wrote as something that belongs together.spaceships said:Geo said:Ridicule is kind of strong. I would say constructive criticism at the most.
Humour me Geo and point out the constructive criticism in the two comments below please? It's a genuine question because I'm honestly struggling to see it.
Firstly "I would call this useless as it is for the forum at large. Nothing to see here folks, move on!"
Then "Goran I had the same thing typed up but thought a moderates should say it. So thank you for saying it this is just forum clutter.
We should take guesses on the chemistry though for fun."
What I was telling is that as it was presented it doesn't share anything unless you have prior knowledge of what the process consists of.g_axelsson said:Maybe I'm a troll, but I'm not seeing any sharing with the forum.
A bowl with a bubbling reaction in a dark liquid. Talking about "chemicals" in shot glasses, powder and some catalyst.
What is the gain of using "reverse AR" and still dissolving all the material? As I see it, the advantage of reverse AR is that you don't have to dissolve all materials.
There is some truth in Kurt's words, maybe your variant of reverse AR is that it isn't reverse AR at all. Just hitting the scrap with the chemical equality of a 10 pound sledge hammer.
Not once mention in writing or in the video what chemicals you use.
I would call this useless as it is for the forum at large. Nothing to see here folks, move on!
Göran
Enter your email address to join: