Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : ECHARTERS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (3282)	7/30/2000 6:08:58 PM
From: Yorikke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3744

Yes, absolutely. Not only overt rust, but they publish whenever they have a positive result for an accepted theory, and if they have a negative result they suppress it, or it gets suppressed by the referee. A bit overstated. It is wonderful to have a result that is not in line with accepted theory. Its just if you do you better have some good explanation for it, or be able to document it quite well. Academic journals are full, not filled, with examples of situations that do not fit theory; that is how theory evolves. But the average graduate student is more likely to misunderstand his findings, or just not dig deep enough into the problem than he is to actually come upon a real exception to theory. (The economic principle that people act rationally is a great example) That is why it is accepted theory---nobody has found a better explanation.

To: marcos who wrote (3282)	8/7/2000 5:16:59 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 3744

You are right about scientific fashion. People grasp at floaty straws and the like while drowning in a sea of scientific "fact". Like the people who support replacement theory and deny that Sudbury ore formation may be sedimentary or at least related to near surface syngenetic processes. They form the magmatic prejudice and support it with all kinds of research designed to keep their jobs and justify their self respect. Of course when they cannot find mines with that theory it just tells them that they are hard to find. They would be better off with no theory at all. Eventually new discoveries made by later generations provide evidence to supplant the hidebound ideas of old and new boys scratch their heads and wonder aloud how they could ignore all that obvious stuff, until the professors tell them to be quiet and write down their new truth. But people have mentioned that continents do drift in past generations. Their was no alternate theory. Now measurements of movement, paleomagnetism, divergence of species and other post and pre cambrian geology support the theory. It explains so many things that it is extremely hard to reject. Scientific theory that enables economic exploration does not support the feeling that lawyers should be able to tell mankind what kind of useful activity to engage in. EC<:-}

To: marcos who wrote (3282)	9/17/2000 10:52:23 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3744

Still in Mescal? I hate to be correct and take discussions were they will be thought on topic when we are having such a good time. But stir the pot and some will say the soup is being spoiled. Childish. But disturb is disturb or it wouldn't have that flavour. Basically people tend to gravitate to comfortable dull limiting authority. Nobody wants to really fly. I realize that my high school electricity should know what the deal is on regen braking. But right hand left hand AC-DC leaves me spinning. I honestly don't know how a motor reacts when it switches from motor to generator. I know that if driven overspeed it generates. Polarity would seem to be the same. Seems to me that to brake the circuit you would have to switch it to another generator or resistor. The slowing turn could not influence the main generator as it would need overspeed without switching to another circuit. EC:-} 24.43.25.216 mailto:echarters@primus.ca