Page 6 of 6

Re: Chelle goes on ...

Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 6:36 am
by Tau
Xymox wrote:Everybody has very fixed opinions and feels they are 100% right.
That's why you don't meet many scientists over in this part of the forum. They are used to not being right. That's what we call progress.

Re: Chelle goes on ...

Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 8:23 am
by mrgumby
People who really want to know what is going on DO NOT insist that they are right. They postulate a set of conditions, and, by argument, attempt to reconcile those conditions with reality.
The true "Crackpot", on the other hand, KNOWS they are right, and regards any contrary indications as evidence of conspiracy or stupidity.

Re: Chelle goes on ...

Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 12:38 pm
by CharmQuark
mrgumby wrote:People who really want to know what is going on DO NOT insist that they are right. They postulate a set of conditions, and, by argument, attempt to reconcile those conditions with reality.
The true "Crackpot", on the other hand, KNOWS they are right, and regards any contrary indications as evidence of conspiracy or stupidity.
Can't argue with that :thumbup:

Re: Chelle goes on ...

Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 8:07 am
by mrgumby
I hate to admit I can't even remember writing that.........must be something to do with the whole bottle of VERY nice red wine that vanished last night......

I agree with it tho.

I must cut down on the amount of red wine I drink. I must cut down on the amount of red wine I drink. I must cut down on the amount of red wine I drink. I must cut down on the amount of red wine I drink. I must cut down on the amount of red wine I drink. I must cut down on the amount of red wine I drink. I must cut down on the amount of red wine I drink. I must cut down on the amount of red wine I drink. I must cut down on the amount of red wine I drink. I must cut down on the amount of red wine I drink. I must cut down on the amount of red wine I drink. I must cut down on the amount of red wine I drink. I must cut down on the amount of red wine I drink. I must cut down on the amount of red wine I drink.

Maybe

Re: Chelle goes on ...

Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 8:45 am
by Kasuha
Does this discussion have anything to do with Chelle and his theories anymore?
Maybe we could let his topic rest in peace...

Re: Chelle goes on ...

Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 9:10 am
by mrgumby
Kasuha: I humbly apologize for upsetting you by making a single vaguely humorous posting in the wrong forum.
I promise to smack myself severely if I ever think of doing it again.

shakes head slowly and rolls eyes

Re: Chelle goes on ...

Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 1:55 am
by CharmQuark
mrgumby wrote:Kasuha: I humbly apologize for upsetting you by making a single vaguely humorous posting in the wrong forum.
I promise to smack myself severely if I ever think of doing it again.

shakes head slowly and rolls eyes
:roll:

Re: Chelle goes on ...

Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:49 am
by Stephen
Has anyone heard from Chelle lately? I wonder how he feels about the upcoming heavy ion experiment.

Re: Chelle goes on ...

Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:23 pm
by CharmQuark
Stephen wrote:Has anyone heard from Chelle lately? I wonder how he feels about the upcoming heavy ion experiment.
Chelle keeps popping back every now and then :D he is trying to get evidence to back his claims :thumbup: I like this about him so much :thumbup:

Re: Chelle goes on ...

Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:10 pm
by chelle
Stephen wrote:Has anyone heard from Chelle lately? I wonder how he feels about the upcoming heavy ion experiment.
Howdy Stephen et al.

I just passed by to see what's new and noticed your question.

My opinion on particle collisions is still the same, when you keep on cranking up tests, you'll hit a point were things might/could/will go wrong. Scientists can only do limited predictions for the rest they are just searching for things that might/could/will pop up just like how nuclear fission was discoverd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#History)

If you argument that the same events, like these collision, happen all the time in nature than you're are only partly telling the truth. Environmental conditions are different as is the flux of these collisions.

Anyway like I said before, I believe that wisdom shall arise and testing will be classified as too risky for global safety.

grtz,

chelle

Re: Chelle goes on ...

Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:22 pm
by CharmQuark
Nice of you to pop by Chelle ;) kinda miss you being around :(

Call back again soon :thumbup:

Re: Chelle goes on ...

Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:16 am
by MagneticTrap
Chelle wrote:I believe that wisdom shall arise and testing will be classified as too risky for global safety.

grtz,

chelle
I would not use the word "wisdom" in the case if the LHC-experiment will be classified as too risky after that we'll already be doomed to die.

Re: Chelle goes on ...

Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:20 am
by chelle
MagneticTrap wrote:I would not use the word "wisdom" in the case if the LHC-experiment will be classified as too risky after that we'll already be doomed to die.
... every person is already doomed or blessed to die, that's nothing new, who want's to live forever, as for humanity and life on our planet that lies for a major part in our own hands, we have to be precocious.