I demand that we do science ITT

why.

 

It's not that I started with an assumption.

It's that I tested a hypothesis to form a conclusion after 3 pages of discussion.

(you might want to get your sarcasm detector tested, btw)

 

That's a philosophy question. This thread is for science.

 

they're the same thing.

 

That's impossible. I've been claiming that throughout the thread, and everyone tells me I'm wrong. And I listen to what people on JC tell me. Especially when they insult me.

 

the problem is nobody knows what you're claiming because your posts tend to ramble on. work on that wordiness.

 

Some ideas can't be expressed in a paragraph.

The fundamental nature of the Scientific Method is one of those.

And being complex doesn't mean it's unimportant or irrelevant.

The inability of many in my audience to comprehend the point does not take away from the point. Frankly I'm astonished at their willingness to announce to the rest of the forum their weaknesses.

edit - That's a bit unfair; a good number of posters don't know what I'm claiming because they stubbornly refuse to read what I wrote.

 

I love the way you deflect. If several people are having trouble understanding the point you're trying to make, could it be that you are not conveying your thoughts effectively?

 

what makes me sad is that you've admitted your problems in this area before, but seem unwilling to improve yourself.

learn how to simplify and use examples. not everybody needs to know the petty minutiae of things. use words for everybody. the way you tend to post is just masturbatory. it's great for you, but the rest of us?

whatever.

 

If several people read what I wrote, and ask for clarification on points where I was unclear, I'm more than happy to reach that conclusion.

Honestly, have you read the post in question yet?

If so, what was unclear?

Thus far, I've gotten a lot of 'TL;DR' and one 'HOW IS THAT NOT COMMON SENSE!? ANSWER ME!!!!'

I love how you're so willing to speak for everyone else. Okay, I get it, you learned nothing from my posts. You can say that, it won't offend me. If you ask questions, I'll clarify. If you do not engage me, I will not respond to you. But for you to speak for The Forums and insist that my writing is worthless... well, it sounds like you're masking your own inadequacies by generalizing your failings to everyone else.

There are surely lurkers who have gained knowledge as a result of reading my posts here. There's at least one in this thread who has piped up to say I actually make sense.

 

Did you bump this thread (this thread that led to you being banned) simply because you felt like arguing with people?

 

Yes.

edit - and you respond to it frequently because... you don't? You're a very weird person.

 

Why?

 

Because I enjoy it.

edit - and in the hopes that someone might pose a legitimate criticism against my ideas, allowing me to improve my understanding of the world.

 

haha, man, you're a riot.

 

Thank you?

 

Let's be careful all around here. Kawphy, bumping a thread and then, basically calling the posters here ignorant is just asking for problems, not to mention that it's on the verge of a giant bait. Tread lightly here all or I'm happy to give out vacation time.

 

Out of curiosity, have you read the whole thread?

 

Out of curiosity, did you understand what I just posted? Because moderating a thread doesn't mean one has to read it from start to finish; especially when an issue arises in the course of the discussion or a user continues to be antagonistic. A warning has already been issued in the thread and I don't intend to keep giving warnings.

To answer your question, yes, I've read the thread.

 

What did you think? Do I make sense? Is there anything I need to clarify?

To answer your question, yes.

 

I'm not getting into a debate here at all, but thanks for asking.

 

Okay. That's fair. Thanks for stopping by

 

More or less, yeah. I believe metalicity is also a factor, although
for purposes of this discussion it can be viewed as just an issue of mass and age.

Nope, that's not at all how a function works. A function requires only that for a given input, there will be a set output. There's no restriction on having multiple inputs lead to a given output. So, for example, if you have f(x)=x^2, then both f(3) and f(-3) equal 9, and just because the output is, say, 4, you can't presume that x is 2. So there are multiple conditions that can lead to a given spectral type, and there is no restriction that they must be the same mass and age. To look at two stars that I mentioned before and you completely ignored, Betelgeuse and Lalande 21185 are both M2 stars and have the same temperature. However, Lalande 21185 is .46 solar masses, .46 solar radii, and is 5 to 10 billion years old. Betelgeuse is 18 or 19 solar masses, around 1200 solar radii, and around 10 million years old. So nearly identical spectra and vastly different stars.

 

I see. So how did scientists discover the differences between the stars, given their near-identical spectra?

 

The Doppler effect, for starters. Stars that are further away have their spectra shifted towards the red end.