Orton's Arm Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Newsflash,. einstein: In science (something you arent overly fond of), when one is proposing a new idea, you do NOT simply state, "this is my arguement, prove it wrong" You must first PROVE your arguement feasible before you toss it around like gospel. Funny you should call for him to provide evidence, because you have yet to supply any of your own. Until you can come up with a coherent method and/or idea of how your solution will work in the future, it holds about as much merit as kelly holcomb has SB rings. ZERO! GG doesnt have to prove your steaming pile of monkey crap idea wrong, becuse you have yet to show how it could possibly work in the first place. You're wrong. We built our existing grid, didn't we? Why can't we expand it? It's not like the relevant commodity prices make such expansion prohibitively expensive. Nor need there be any obstacles to the construction of new power plants. Expanding the power grid could be done without using technology that was around 100 years ago. So no, I don't have to prove this is possible. Expanding our power grid was possible 100 years ago, it was possible 50 years ago, and it was possible 20 years ago. If GG feels some new factor has arisen to make further expansion impossible, it's up to him to tell us what this new factor might actually be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Just want to make sure that I update the list of open questions: Contestant search for America's Stupidest Woman©™ - check. Doing the math for Tom - check. Solving the energy crisis - check. It always amuses me when people actually buy Tom's line about there being some mysterious "math" that would undermine the articles from Stanford, Duke, the University of Washington, etc. I've asked him what that alleged "math" was supposed to pertain to or to prove. His way of answering the question was to throw insults at me. I don't expect you in particular to grasp this, given your apparent inability to grasp anything. But for everyone else out there--Tom doesn't have the mathematical proof he says he does. It's just bluster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 You're wrong. We built our existing grid, didn't we? Why can't we expand it? It's not like the relevant commodity prices make such expansion prohibitively expensive. Nor need there be any obstacles to the construction of new power plants. Expanding the power grid could be done without using technology that was around 100 years ago. So no, I don't have to prove this is possible. Expanding our power grid was possible 100 years ago, it was possible 50 years ago, and it was possible 20 years ago. If GG feels some new factor has arisen to make further expansion impossible, it's up to him to tell us what this new factor might actually be. well, use your self-proclaimed genius to show how it could feasibly be done. You say it can be done, but dont back up your opinions with even the slightest shred of evidence. Its simple. Come up with a coherent, well thought out plan to feasibly expand the power grid. Dont just say it can be done because it was done before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Its simple. Come up with a coherent, well thought out plan to feasibly expand the power grid. Dont just say it can be done because it was done before. Even simpler. He'll walk into the state public service commission office and say, "We built our existing grid, didn't we? Why can't we expand it? It's not like the relevant commodity prices make such expansion prohibitively expensive. Nor need there be any obstacles to the construction of new power plants. Expanding the power grid could be done without using technology that was around 100 years ago. So no, I don't have to prove this is possible. Expanding our power grid was possible 100 years ago, it was possible 50 years ago, and it was possible 20 years ago." He'll get a standing ovation, plus milk & cookies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 well, use your self-proclaimed genius to show how it could feasibly be done. You say it can be done, but dont back up your opinions with even the slightest shred of evidence. Its simple. Come up with a coherent, well thought out plan to feasibly expand the power grid. Dont just say it can be done because it was done before. Fine. Buy copper wire. Allocate the wire where needed. Build new power plants where necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Even simpler. He'll walk into the state public service commission office and say, "We built our existing grid, didn't we? Why can't we expand it? It's not like the relevant commodity prices make such expansion prohibitively expensive. Nor need there be any obstacles to the construction of new power plants. Expanding the power grid could be done without using technology that was around 100 years ago. So no, I don't have to prove this is possible. Expanding our power grid was possible 100 years ago, it was possible 50 years ago, and it was possible 20 years ago." He'll get a standing ovation, plus milk & cookies. Hell, i'd be satisfied with him showing even the slightest little bit of critical coherent thought. He could even show he's thinking by saying something like..."we can expand the power carrying capacity of the grid by switching and using superconductors to carry large amounts of electricity around the country." Now, while that technology is a step forward, and may be the way of the future, its not exactly feasible at this point in time. But at least a statement like that would show some type of critical thought, and that he's actually considering some of the new technologies being developed. But then again, this IS holcombs arm we're talking about. Critical thought and a coherent arguement arent his strong points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Even simpler. He'll walk into the state public service commission office and say, "We built our existing grid, didn't we? Why can't we expand it? It's not like the relevant commodity prices make such expansion prohibitively expensive. Nor need there be any obstacles to the construction of new power plants. Expanding the power grid could be done without using technology that was around 100 years ago. So no, I don't have to prove this is possible. Expanding our power grid was possible 100 years ago, it was possible 50 years ago, and it was possible 20 years ago." He'll get a standing ovation, plus milk & cookies. NYS can't get additional transmission lines from upstate to downstate installed due to NIMBY. Much less anyone even think about building a new generation plant. But I'm sure it's much easier in the other 49 states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 It always amuses me when people actually buy Tom's line about there being some mysterious "math" that would undermine the articles from Stanford, Duke, the University of Washington, etc. I've asked him what that alleged "math" was supposed to pertain to or to prove. His way of answering the question was to throw insults at me. I don't expect you in particular to grasp this, given your apparent inability to grasp anything. But for everyone else out there--Tom doesn't have the mathematical proof he says he does. It's just bluster. On the contrary. The math proves you don't know what you're talking about. A great many people here who can do the math know that. They don't need me to link to it, because they can do the math. You're the only retard demanding a link...because you can't do the math. And as for this electric grid argument...is there anything you're NOT completely clueless about? "Buy wire. String it. Build power plants." Ask the residents of California how easy that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Fine. Buy copper wire. Allocate the wire where needed. Build new power plants where necessary. Again, you dont let us down, and continue your streak of unparalleled idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Again, you dont let us down, and continue your streak of unparalleled idiocy. It's the retatta equivalent of rebuilding an electrical grid. Don't forget the pickle juice for super conductivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 It's the retatta equivalent of rebuilding an electrical grid. Don't forget the pickle juice for super conductivity. I'm going to try the holcombs arm approach with a journal, such as nature or science. I'll submit an article claiming that cell X and chemokine Y are a cure for cancer. When they ask me for proof, i'll claim "Cell X cured something else before, so why not cancer?" I will then tell them that THEY need to prove ME wrong, even tho i have zero evidence to back up my statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 86 links on why Al is full of schnitt. http://www.schnittshow.com/globalwarming.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I'm going to try the holcombs arm approach with a journal, such as nature or science. I'll submit an article claiming that cell X and chemokine Y are a cure for cancer. When they ask me for proof, i'll claim "Cell X cured something else before, so why not cancer?" I will then tell them that THEY need to prove ME wrong, even tho i have zero evidence to back up my statements. Wouldn't that be "Cell X cured something else before, look it up in Wikipedia, which is a more reliable source than you."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 It's the retatta equivalent of rebuilding an electrical grid. Don't forget the pickle juice for super conductivity. A new electrical plant in only one hour. But you have to grill the grids for an extra 20 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 A new electrical plant in only one hour. But you have to grill the grids for an extra 20 minutes. Electric? That's the problem. Use gas, rookie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Electric? That's the problem. Use gas, rookie! But the retatta plant will create plenty of gas. Its a cyclical thingy. Just make sure you follow the instructions. Its posted on wikipedia, fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 On the contrary. The math proves you don't know what you're talking about. A great many people here who can do the math know that. They don't need me to link to it, because they can do the math. You're the only retard demanding a link...because you can't do the math. And as for this electric grid argument...is there anything you're NOT completely clueless about? "Buy wire. String it. Build power plants." Ask the residents of California how easy that is. Wow! More insults from you, but still no math. What a surprise. Hey, if you're too lazy to do the relevant math, the least you can do is to tell us a) which of my statements the math is intended to disprove, and b) provide a general outline for how the math would go about disproving it. You haven't done this, and you won't do it, because the math you're pretending exists is an empty bluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 i have zero evidence to back up my statements. What else is new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Wow! More insults from you, but still no math. What a surprise. Hey, if you're too lazy to do the relevant math, the least you can do is to tell us a) which of my statements the math is intended to disprove, and b) provide a general outline for how the math would go about disproving it. You haven't done this, and you won't do it, because the math you're pretending exists is an empty bluff. Is there going to be a point when you realize you're not helping yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 What else is new? Is this an example of "furthering the discussion"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts