To: LibWhacker
Science is filled with phlogiston.
To: aMorePerfectUnion
Scientists can’t even get their $h1t together and expect us to just follow along. Oh, I thought this was a global warming thread. Sorry, carry on with the theoretical pointless physics.
5 posted on
10/24/2016 2:02:20 PM PDT by
sagar
To: aMorePerfectUnion
Let me save everyone some time:
phlo·gis·ton /flōˈjistän,-tən/
noun
a substance supposed by 18th-century chemists to exist in all combustible bodies, and to be released in combustion.
8 posted on
10/24/2016 2:03:53 PM PDT by
freedumb2003
(Never Trump=Always hiLIARy)
To: aMorePerfectUnion
and that is floating in the aether
40 posted on
10/24/2016 2:53:22 PM PDT by
Mr. K
(Trump is running against EVERYONE. The Democrats, The Media, and the establishment GOP)
To: aMorePerfectUnion
Does that mean the mass of science is negative?
To: aMorePerfectUnion
I thought it was fluoristan. (Makes starlight whiter!)
52 posted on
10/24/2016 5:14:38 PM PDT by
YogicCowboy
("I am not entirely on anyone's side, because no one is entirely on mine." - JRRT)
To: aMorePerfectUnion
"We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae - over 10 times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based - and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call '3 sigma'," reports lead researcher, Subir Sarkar, from the University of Oxford.
"This is far short of the '5 sigma' standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance." Whoa! This is hardly a resounding refutation! This is more like DUMB AND DUMBER ... "Yes! Then there is a chance!" ( That they might be wrong. )
"3 sigma" means that 99.7% of actually true models would pass the test. The "5 sigma" standard is intended to represent virtual certainty. In this case the implication is that the 0.3% chance that the model could be wrong disqualifies it from factitude.
58 posted on
10/24/2016 6:27:09 PM PDT by
dr_lew
(I)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson