Cryogenically treated cables

Funny, it is dogmatic attachments to faith that normally allow people to attach onto concepts that they cannot offer any proof for. Hence, they tend to attack their detractors, not the arguments offered by their detractors just as you are doing here.

I am quite willing to discuss a competing theory when it actually becomes a "theory", heck, I would even be willing to consider a well thought our "hypothesis".


I consider it rather comical that you accuse me of insult, innuendo, and self-important proclamations when it is exactly those things that have been thrown in my direction, and yet still, not one well thought out or reasoned refutation of what I have wrote. You are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Some may come to the conclusion that the lack of reasoned arguments and the jump to attacking the person, not the arguments may be indicative of something, but what could that be?

clearthink966 posts11-04-2019 12:20pm
atdavid"You say stubborn, I say not gullible."

Those who have attained rigid, absolute, unqualified beliefs often resort to claims of superior knowledge, education, and/or experience to justify, rationalize and defend they’re beliefs which in fact are only beliefs and the refusal to entertain, consider, or even evaluate competing theories without resorting to insult, innuendo, and self-important proclamations reveal that underlying the "reason" is really "Faith".

Engineering is hard science. Make no mistake about it. 

dear op
please get the same cable cryo and not and hear for yourself

“Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization, hyper-specialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and ecological vacuum. So disconnected has official science become from the greater scheme of things, that it tends to deny or disregard entire domains of reality and to satisfy itself with reducing all of life and consciousness to a dead physics.”

Oh look, more ad-homs (and inaccuracies).
1) Engineering has no laws since Engineering is predominantly an applied science and hence does not specifically deal with fundamental properties of the universe, though it will use those properties and it will often be used to both verify and falsify those properties. As well, Engineers, just by virtue of title and schooling path, do often get involved in fundamental science.

2) Fundamental science has many soft-laws, and a few somewhat hard laws, pretty much always defined by a mathematical equation, i.e. E=MC^2, which is well defined and bounded. This why when you hear Joe's Law, Joe is pretty much always defined as a scientist, not an engineer, again, because laws are pretty much always framed around fundamental science and never engineering.


"Laws are for punishing people who do not fit the societal ideals. " .... while there is truth to advancements in science (not so much engineering) that often it is death that advances science, this statement, when it cannot be backed up by sound and logical arguments for what you are promoting, just sounds like sour grapes.

teo_audio1,196 posts11-04-2019 1:15pmI don’t think you know the history and meaning of engineering.

and importantly, science has no laws. that’s an engineering thing and is a human weakness issue.

Laws are for punishing people who do not fit the societal ideals.

Laws have no place in science whatsoever.