[Bored chemist]

I already gave you 2 experiments

OK.
An experiment is a set of things that are done in order to see what happens.
What did you propose should actually be done?
Obviously, to be useful they need to be "new" experiments which haven't been done before in some way.
If an experiment has been done, it is not an "additional" experiment because it doesn't add anything.
So it can't be an answer to the question.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:59:05
What additional experiments do you think we need?

[Deecart]

What did you propose should actually be done?

It dont have to give you some additional experiment.
It is you who pretend that the theoritical explanation given in the video is the truth.
I am sure you already have said this many times : Within science, it it to the one that states something to proove it.

Myself i only say that i never heard about any experimentation that proove this explanation.
So it is, in my opinion, only some interpretation of low value, without any observation.
What experimentations remember you to proove this interpretation ?

 

[Bored chemist]

It dont have to give you some additional experiment.

You do if you want to support your assertion

The fact that you dont understand that the refraction phenomenon need some additionnal experimentation shows that you dont understand how experiments are designed and why we do experiments.

Are you now accepting that the fact that I don't think we need further experiments is because we have done them?
Do you also accept that I actually do understand refraction quite well?
And do you accept that I also know about experiments?

Within science, it it to the one that states something to proove it.

You stated this
"The fact that you dont understand that the refraction phenomenon need some additionnal experimentation shows that you dont understand how experiments are designed and why we do experiments."
Prove it.
Prove that we "need some additionnal experimentation".

Myself i only say that i never heard about any experimentation that proove this explanation.

That looks a lot like what I said earlier

You might think that ε doesn't explain anything, but that's only because you do not understand the science.

[Deecart]

You do if you want to support your assertion

It is amusing to see that you dont understand that it is no me who is doing some assertion.

Are you now accepting that the fact that I don't think we need further experiments is because we have done them?

You have not showed anything like that.

Do you also accept that I actually do understand refraction quite well?

I am now quite sure you dont understand how refraction work.
My opinion is that you are not a scientist but an engineer.

And do you accept that I also know about experiments?

Sure, if you accept that i know how to change lead into gold.

You only pretend and never proove anything.

Prove that we "need some additionnal experimentation".

Proove yourself that we have done the experiments that confirm the explanations we have in the video.

I myself dont need to proove anything, i am only saying that the explanation need a proof.
If there was some experiment the guy in the video would have used it to confirm his assertion , and so would you also.
So i suppose nobody never did those experiements.

That looks a lot like what I said earlier

So now you admit that we never did any experiment that permit to confirm the explanation ?
Try to remain coherent.

[Bored chemist]

I myself dont need to proove anything

You said earlier that you do.

Within science, it it to the one that states something to proove it.

Perhaps you should go away and think about it.
Come back when you have made up your mind.

It is amusing to see that you dont understand that it is no me who is doing some assertion.

Here, yet again, is the assertion which you made.

The fact that you dont understand that the refraction phenomenon need some additionnal experimentation shows that you dont understand how experiments are designed and why we do experiments.

Sure, if you accept that i know how to change lead into gold.

Well, it's not very practical but...
https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/can-we-transform-lead-into-gold.html
Now you know.

You have not showed anything like that.

I have repeatedly asked you what new experiments we would need.
You still refuse to answer.

Why is that?

So i suppose nobody never did those experiements.

How do you think the guy came to his conclusions without data?

[Bored chemist]

My opinion is that you are not a scientist but an engineer.

Well, in reality, I'm a scientist. That's what I have been paid for these last 30 years or so.
Prior to that I studied chemistry at Oxford.


I know stuff (for example, I know that you can make lead into gold).
I have knowledge- or scientia.

I'm also able to display ingenuity.
So I guess I might be some sort of engineer, but I have no formal qualifications as one.

Just out of curiosity, what qualifications and experience do you have?

[Bored chemist]

So now you admit that we never did any experiment that permit to confirm the explanation ?

That's not what I said, is it?

[alancalverd]

What experience ?

Don't ignore the word "no" in the first line of my post!

[Deecart]

Well, it's not very practical but...
https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/can-we-transform-lead-into-gold.html
Now you know.

So you think i dont know this pretty obvious thing (even low student know this actually)...
I was just saying that to make you understand something, but forget it...

You said earlier that you do.

No i dident.
If i can help you, there are the words "at least".

Perhaps you should go away and think about it.
Come back when you have made up your mind.

I have already tried to understand how science work many years, so yes i dont need some delay to understand it.
But you do, and it is probably why you ask me to delay my intervention ?

Here, yet again, is the assertion which you made.

No, i already explained it to you 3 times.

I have repeatedly asked you what new experiments we would need.
You still refuse to answer.

I have proposed 2 new experiments, you 0 experiment and you continue to say that there are some experience already done... Just give us the reference instead of talking about you.

How do you think the guy came to his conclusions without data?

He probably repeated what he heard, this is what priest and engineer do : They repeat the dogma.

And you, you know how ? (perhaps you also can read in the guys minds...)

Well, in reality, I'm a scientist.That's what I have been paid for these last 30 years or so.
Prior to that I studied chemistry at Oxford.

No, you pretend to be.
The proof : You are not understanding the importance of experiment versus the theory and confuse between principle, hypothesis and scientific facts.
So you are some engineer.
We dont need to explain 3 times the same with no result to a scientist..
 

That's not what I said, is it?

Stop with the blabla, the fact that you are some scientist or not is not very interresting : Just show us the experiences = facts.

[alancalverd]

He probably repeated what he heard, this is what priest and engineer do

You have clearly never met an engineer. Priests, politicians and philosophers are forms of parasite, not to be confused with those of us who use science to improve the human condition. Fortunately there is a lot of reliable scientific data on which one can base sound designs without having to repeat basic experiments. People who ignore good data, or make promises based on hope rather than information, fall into the parasitic category. If they don't know the facts, parasites make excuses, engineers make measurements. 

[Bored chemist]

I have proposed 2 new experiments

Where?
Quote them.

[Bored chemist]

why you ask me to delay my intervention ?

To give you time to work out if things need to be proved or not.
Because you say they do

Within science, it it to the one that states something to proove it.

And then you say they don't.

I myself dont need to proove anything,

[Bored chemist]

So you think i dont know this pretty obvious thing (even low student know this actually)...

Yes.
I think you didn't know about it.
Because, if you knew about it, you would not have used it as an example of something "impossible", would you?

[Bored chemist]

No, you pretend to be.

I really am a scientist. I have a beard and glasses. I even have a white coat somewhere.

[Bored chemist]

And you, you know how ?

I didn't make any claim about him so I'm not the one who needs to prove anything about him.
On the other hand, you said "

So i suppose nobody never did those experiements.

And, once again we are in the realms of you making unsupported claims.

[Bored chemist]

the fact that you are some scientist or not is not very interresting

Then why did you raise the issue?

Stop with the blabla

Pointing out your errors is not " blabla"; it's science.

[Deecart]

You have clearly never met an engineer. Priests, politicians and philosophers are forms of parasite, not to be confused with those of us who use science to improve the human condition.

Perhaps you already met engineers but you clearly dident understand what they do.
Priests "use" the result of science too you know.... They have a house, drive cars, drink in bottle, take some baths, cook, travel in planes, and use some phones. Or do you think they live like prehistoric men
Engineers "use" the result of science too, like everyone here on earth.

A scientist at the oposite do not only use the result of science : It create science
This is the main difference of scientist.

Engineers add technology to actual technology.
Scientists add science to actual science.
You are sure you really met some scientist ?

 

[Deecart]

Where?
Quote them.

Too tired to read ?
Use your strength to read instead of writing pointless things.

[Deecart]

And then you say they don't.

No, try to understand.

[Deecart]

Yes.
I think you didn't know about it.
Because, if you knew about it, you would not have used it as an example of something "impossible", would you?

This is false logic used by the sophists.

The reality is : I have used this as an example not because it is impossible but "for some other reason" (I already have explained this to you...)
So you say this is impossible that i say this, because " and you cite you own understanding" (believing you are knowing better what i have in my own mind... very funny).
But what you dont understand is : I have clearly writen this, so you should at least admit this fact : It is possible to say this (unlike your belief)