Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408677
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: MMX violates the second postulate |
| Date | 2017-02-10 10:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <eg4dm4F71vrU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <040af8a4-9f1e-449c-8b50-38aaa997290a@googlegroups.com> <eg31tcFsiibU1@mid.individual.net> <8cbb1604-9937-4ecd-9f29-4e971a0ca2da@googlegroups.com> <eg3739Ftk4oU1@mid.individual.net> <2d97e0f8-b410-46e4-ac67-d15dc9892216@googlegroups.com> |
On 10/02/2017 12:38 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 13:54:04 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 9/02/2017 10:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 12:25:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>> >>>> Well, that's fortunate, because physics is an interest of mine, but my >>>> profession is that of software engineer, and I hold a degree in Computer >>>> Science from Manchester University, UK. >>>> >>>> Now that that's established, what were you saying about my >>>> qualifications to say how science is done? >>> >>> That You're totally incompetent. >> >> Ok, so a Computer Science degree doesn't necessarily indicate a >> competence to say how science is done. > > Right. > And You have no. Don't You agree? We can discuss. > As You have a CS degree, You should have > enough basics to make it possible, in opposition > to Jan or Tom... > >>> Two more things more needs establishing. >>> 1)Does Your theory of "how a theory should look" >>> look like a theory should look (according to its >>> own rules)? >> >> I didn't say anything about how a theory should look, despite your quotes. > > OK, so let's ask it differently: > is Your (theory of how science is done) > done the way described in it? > What I observe about how science is done is that people make observations of the results of experiments, and then form theories to describe those observations. Those theories are then used to predict other results of experiments that have not been performed, and those experiments are done to see whether the results match the predictions. If not, the theory is modified or replaced. If yes, then further predictions are made. I have no theory about how science is done, because it would have to make additional predictions, and I have no way of doing experiments on how science is done. I never claimed to have such a theory. > >>> 2)Where did You get it from? Was it the Computer >>> Science Department of Manchester University, UK? >>> Or maybe was it some other source? >>> >> >> Comp Sci Dept. Sorry, but I really do have that degree. Not sure about >> you, though. > > I surely don't have a degree of Comp Sci Dept of Manchester > University. And I was asking, where You got Your theory > of how science works, not Your degree. > You made a false assumption. Sylvia.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 23:57 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:06 +1100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 00:11 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:14 +1100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 01:13 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:53 +0100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:39 -0600
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-02-11 23:37 +0100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 01:53 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 11:22 +0100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 11:48 +0100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 16:30 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:49 +0100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-12 23:25 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-13 12:58 +0000
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:52 +0100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 00:18 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-13 04:03 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-12 08:45 -0600
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 16:14 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-13 08:19 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 07:09 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:19 +0100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:31 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:27 +0100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:36 +1100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:49 +0100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 01:16 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:58 +0100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 02:13 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 21:38 +1100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:13 +0100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:30 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:32 +1100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:41 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 20:00 +1100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 01:13 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 21:39 +1100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 03:09 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 22:25 +1100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 03:57 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 23:53 +1100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 05:38 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-10 10:52 +1100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 23:29 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:17 -0500
Re: MMX violates the second postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-11 10:20 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:09 +0100
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:37 -0600
Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 08:16 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 07:07 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 15:11 -0800
Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 01:46 -0800
csiph-web