Quote:
|
Galileo was persecuted because his thinking contradicted the Church's belief the Earth was at the center of the universe, and the planets revolved around it.
|
Galileo was given free reign to write about Copernicean theory by the Pope as long as he also presented the other side. He chose to write a book that featured 3 people (one a simpleton asking questions who very clearly was a characiture of the Pope) and was placed under house arrest for pulling on Superman's cape basically. BTW the proofs of Copernicus that Galileo espoused to the Pope (just prior to his book that mocked the pope and got him arrested) were bs: he used the tides as proof and said that the oceans couldn't keep up with the motion of the earth. There are two problems with this: Galileo himself had disproved that this could be (he dropped a hammer from a pole on a moving cart and it fell at the base of the pole proving that objects on a moving object are moving at the same rate) and there would have only been 1 tide if his "proof" was true (seems like a kinda obvious thing to miss). DO read "Conversations on the Dark Secrets of Physics" by Ed Teller. It is great for all who are interested in science.
I don't see anyone really attempting to persecute you here (hence the Galileo comment however historically valid is a bit melodramatic); I saw some legitimate comments that the review was damn near unreadable. And just because you can use big words doesn't mean you have to. My honest estimation is that the bulk of madshrimps' readers are taking your opinion at face value just because you are using big words and not based upon the quality of your testing and methods. That isn't the reputation for which I personally would strive.
The goal of science is (imo) to make complicated processes and abstract concepts simple to understand and control. I'll grant that using precise language (which requires a learning curve to pick up) is actually a way we further technical discussions. In contrast, using verbose and unnecessarily complicated language adds nothing to the technical discussion, alienates the readers and bystanders, and makes one look pompous to other participants.
As far as testing equipment goes, I have refrained from comment. My first waterblock review attempts were with typical overclocker stuff and a HORRID bell-type flowmeter. Over time I bought more and more equipment, figured out internal diode calibrations, improved testing methods, read and reread Crane 410 and Bill's overclockers articles, and still have a lot of work to do. The important thing is to know the limitations of what your equipment can do, and to set out a clear question to answer before you start. That's true in my labs at work (I ALWAYS begin any project with an assessment of what is technically feasible) and it is true in my domestic PC cooling testing facility (aka basement corner).