Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422946 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-18 22:59 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-25 23:44 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 57 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-18 22:59 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 13:00 +0000
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-19 06:32 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 22:38 +0000
Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-19 18:37 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-19 23:43 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 03:14 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 03:51 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 11:09 +0000
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 04:40 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 14:40 +0000
Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-20 07:33 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 05:22 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 05:30 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 08:23 -0500
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 06:35 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:39 +0000
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 06:45 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 14:40 +0000
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 09:14 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 10:27 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 17:32 +0000
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 11:35 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 05:03 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 05:32 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 11:28 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 23:33 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 11:12 -0500
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-21 09:45 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 05:07 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 05:07 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 15:32 -0500
Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-22 15:38 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-22 15:40 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 23:34 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 16:56 +0000
Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-21 10:20 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-21 10:36 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-21 22:03 -0400
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-21 23:12 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 10:24 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 11:12 -0500
Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 10:18 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-20 07:38 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 10:22 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 11:09 +0000
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 04:39 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 14:15 +0000
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 08:50 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-20 09:11 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-20 07:50 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 03:00 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:03 +0000
Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-20 07:41 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-19 15:01 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-24 12:04 -0700
Re: Scientific method and its applications mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-25 23:44 -0700
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 22:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Scientific method and its applications |
| Message-ID | <914e9e40-5c27-428e-a73b-d001205bc0fc@googlegroups.com> |
A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble is experimentally confirmed. The method is very effective.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 13:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi8hth$1qel$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422946 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade > (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble > is experimentally confirmed. > The method is very effective. > If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are corrupt, then why are you here? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 06:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90088abb-d5ba-44d7-92bb-f4041d6abd85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422972 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade > > (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble > > is experimentally confirmed. > > The method is very effective. > > > > If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are > corrupt, then why are you here? To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. But not "all scientist", of course. It's just your bunch of idiots in need of your "scientific method". Other domains didn't join your anti-common-sense crusade and common sense is still confirming them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 22:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi9jp7$1mif$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422976 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade >>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble >>> is experimentally confirmed. >>> The method is very effective. >>> >> >> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are >> corrupt, then why are you here? > > To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. > But not "all scientist", of course. It's > just your bunch of idiots in need of your > "scientific method". Other domains didn't > join your anti-common-sense crusade and > common sense is still confirming them. > How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? What do they do? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 18:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59487C46.45C7@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #423051 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade > >>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble > >>> is experimentally confirmed. > >>> The method is very effective. > >>> > >> > >> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are > >> corrupt, then why are you here? > > > > To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. > > But not "all scientist", of course. It's > > just your bunch of idiots in need of your > > "scientific method". Other domains didn't > > join your anti-common-sense crusade and > > common sense is still confirming them. > > > > How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? > > And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? > What do they do? > who are they? What do they do? They are the ones who get the funding for finding cancer cures and discovering invisible planets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 23:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4add719f-12f2-4828-b3ff-1672f9b354ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423051 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade > >>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble > >>> is experimentally confirmed. > >>> The method is very effective. > >>> > >> > >> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are > >> corrupt, then why are you here? > > > > To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. > > But not "all scientist", of course. It's > > just your bunch of idiots in need of your > > "scientific method". Other domains didn't > > join your anti-common-sense crusade and > > common sense is still confirming them. > > > > How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? > > And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? > What do they do? How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism? How did Galileo falsify absolute movement? Do historians do much experiments? For centuries science worked: theoreticians made theories, and when common sense said "they are reliable" people relied on them. Of course, common sense would never say such thing for your Shit. Even your idiot guru had no doubts, so he announced common sense a colllection of prejudices. And, as you urgently needed a philosophy saying that your Shit is worthy - the "scientific method" arose. A simple story.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 03:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d48a7453-2ff4-4d1f-b840-86e518a3b5b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423063 |
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > >>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade > > >>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble > > >>> is experimentally confirmed. > > >>> The method is very effective. > > >>> > > >> > > >> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are > > >> corrupt, then why are you here? > > > > > > To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. > > > But not "all scientist", of course. It's > > > just your bunch of idiots in need of your > > > "scientific method". Other domains didn't > > > join your anti-common-sense crusade and > > > common sense is still confirming them. > > > > > > > How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? > > > > > > And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? > > What do they do? > > How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism? > How did Galileo falsify absolute movement? > Do historians do much experiments? > > For centuries science worked: theoreticians > made theories, and when common sense said > "they are reliable" people relied on them. That works fine (up to a point(*)) if all you do is deal with macroscopic objects and don't ask questions which probe too deeply. Past certain point the above prescription turns straight back into Mediaeval scholasticism. (*) even the solidity of macroscopic objects cannot be modelled without quantum mechanics. > Of course, common sense would never say > such thing for your Shit. Calling names stuff you don't understand won't get you anywhere. You are wasting your time. > Even your idiot guru Ditto. You completely destroy any credibility to your posts by using this infantile attitude. Do you really think that the person who shouts louder wins? > had no doubts, so he announced > common sense a colllection of prejudices. Why are you so hung up on this little quote? > And, as you urgently needed a philosophy > saying that your Shit is worthy - the > "scientific method" arose. A simple story. No, this is false. The scientific method did not originate with relativity. What's the point of making stuff up? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 03:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5d51d79-f77b-4a52-ab60-ef29d7b54977@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423069 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 12:14:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > > >>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade > > > >>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble > > > >>> is experimentally confirmed. > > > >>> The method is very effective. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are > > > >> corrupt, then why are you here? > > > > > > > > To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. > > > > But not "all scientist", of course. It's > > > > just your bunch of idiots in need of your > > > > "scientific method". Other domains didn't > > > > join your anti-common-sense crusade and > > > > common sense is still confirming them. > > > > > > > > > > How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? > > > > > > > > > > And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? > > > What do they do? > > > > How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism? > > How did Galileo falsify absolute movement? > > Do historians do much experiments? > > > > For centuries science worked: theoreticians > > made theories, and when common sense said > > "they are reliable" people relied on them. > > That works fine (up to a point(*)) Yeah. Up to a point when scientists get insane and start to believe they are holy cows that have to be believed whatever they say. (not all of them, of course - only physicists).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 11:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oiavp7$1ijo$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423073 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 12:14:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: >> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade >>>>>>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble >>>>>>> is experimentally confirmed. >>>>>>> The method is very effective. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are >>>>>> corrupt, then why are you here? >>>>> >>>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. >>>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's >>>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your >>>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't >>>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and >>>>> common sense is still confirming them. >>>>> >>>> >>>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? >>>> What do they do? >>> >>> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism? >>> How did Galileo falsify absolute movement? >>> Do historians do much experiments? >>> >>> For centuries science worked: theoreticians >>> made theories, and when common sense said >>> "they are reliable" people relied on them. >> >> That works fine (up to a point(*)) > > Yeah. Up to a point when scientists get insane > and start to believe they are holy cows that > have to be believed whatever they say. > (not all of them, of course - only physicists). > Let the experiments convince. Now if you claim experiments are corrupt and cannot be trusted, then you have lost your grip on how ALL scientists establish truth. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 04:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <653b0171-6ad0-44d7-870b-68fcffd8a948@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423077 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 13:09:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 12:14:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > >> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade > >>>>>>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble > >>>>>>> is experimentally confirmed. > >>>>>>> The method is very effective. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are > >>>>>> corrupt, then why are you here? > >>>>> > >>>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. > >>>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's > >>>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your > >>>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't > >>>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and > >>>>> common sense is still confirming them. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? > >>>> What do they do? > >>> > >>> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism? > >>> How did Galileo falsify absolute movement? > >>> Do historians do much experiments? > >>> > >>> For centuries science worked: theoreticians > >>> made theories, and when common sense said > >>> "they are reliable" people relied on them. > >> > >> That works fine (up to a point(*)) > > > > Yeah. Up to a point when scientists get insane > > and start to believe they are holy cows that > > have to be believed whatever they say. > > (not all of them, of course - only physicists). > > > > Let the experiments convince. > Now if you claim experiments are corrupt and cannot be trusted, then you > have lost your grip on how ALL scientists establish truth. Experiments? Take a look at GPS, poor idiot. The clocks indicate t'=t - and THAT's an experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oibc4q$91r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423082 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 13:09:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 12:14:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: >>>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >>>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade >>>>>>>>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble >>>>>>>>> is experimentally confirmed. >>>>>>>>> The method is very effective. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are >>>>>>>> corrupt, then why are you here? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. >>>>>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's >>>>>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your >>>>>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't >>>>>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and >>>>>>> common sense is still confirming them. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? >>>>>> What do they do? >>>>> >>>>> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism? >>>>> How did Galileo falsify absolute movement? >>>>> Do historians do much experiments? >>>>> >>>>> For centuries science worked: theoreticians >>>>> made theories, and when common sense said >>>>> "they are reliable" people relied on them. >>>> >>>> That works fine (up to a point(*)) >>> >>> Yeah. Up to a point when scientists get insane >>> and start to believe they are holy cows that >>> have to be believed whatever they say. >>> (not all of them, of course - only physicists). >>> >> >> Let the experiments convince. >> Now if you claim experiments are corrupt and cannot be trusted, then you >> have lost your grip on how ALL scientists establish truth. > > Experiments? Take a look at GPS, poor idiot. The clocks > indicate t'=t - and THAT's an experiment. > Look at ALL experiments, not just one you wan to look at. But then again, if you think physicists are corrupt and that the scientific method is a waste of time, why are you here? Do you think that someone who thinks astrology is garbage should spend all his time on astrology groups venting his lack of respect for astrology? If yes, WHY? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59493238.34A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #423077 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 12:14:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > >> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade > >>>>>>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble > >>>>>>> is experimentally confirmed. > >>>>>>> The method is very effective. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are > >>>>>> corrupt, then why are you here? > >>>>> > >>>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. > >>>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's > >>>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your > >>>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't > >>>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and > >>>>> common sense is still confirming them. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? > >>>> What do they do? > >>> > >>> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism? > >>> How did Galileo falsify absolute movement? > >>> Do historians do much experiments? > >>> > >>> For centuries science worked: theoreticians > >>> made theories, and when common sense said > >>> "they are reliable" people relied on them. > >> > >> That works fine (up to a point(*)) > > > > Yeah. Up to a point when scientists get insane > > and start to believe they are holy cows that > > have to be believed whatever they say. > > (not all of them, of course - only physicists). > > > > Let the experiments convince. > Now if you claim experiments are corrupt and cannot be trusted, then you > have lost your grip on how ALL scientists establish truth. Not a single theory contains True/False, so where is this..."establish Truth"????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 05:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ddb0370-945a-4ec6-9e6f-2667060a9278@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423073 |
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:51:38 PM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 12:14:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > > > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > > > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > > > >>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade > > > > >>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble > > > > >>> is experimentally confirmed. > > > > >>> The method is very effective. > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are > > > > >> corrupt, then why are you here? > > > > > > > > > > To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. > > > > > But not "all scientist", of course. It's > > > > > just your bunch of idiots in need of your > > > > > "scientific method". Other domains didn't > > > > > join your anti-common-sense crusade and > > > > > common sense is still confirming them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? > > > > What do they do? > > > > > > How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism? > > > How did Galileo falsify absolute movement? > > > Do historians do much experiments? > > > > > > For centuries science worked: theoreticians > > > made theories, and when common sense said > > > "they are reliable" people relied on them. > > > > That works fine (up to a point(*)) > > Yeah. Up to a point when scientists get insane > and start to believe they are holy cows that > have to be believed whatever they say. > (not all of them, of course - only physicists). No, not that. This is a typical strawman argument. Reality is simply that just like any other complicated subject (law, brain surgery, etc.) the expectation is that in order to provide technical critiques that don't immediately fall into the "not even wrong" category (like the one you wrote above), a certain amount of knowledge of the subject is a prerequisite. The issue we have with your posts (besides their weird language) is that you make absolutely MONUMENTAL claims with nothing to back them up except a few lines of high-school-level generalities here and there. (Nothing wrong with high schools, BTW.) Literally a few lines. And there is simply no way that kind of MONUMENTAL claim could be proved by simple juggling of certain first principles like "common sense" or "models theory" within the space of an ASCII Internet forum paragraph. This sort of thing would be easily in the Nobel Prize range and, of course, would have been done decades ago. People are not stupid. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 05:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <632b8b87-296d-4748-b8ac-86a7fd232437@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423087 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 14:22:15 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:51:38 PM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 12:14:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > > > > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > > > > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > > > > >>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade > > > > > >>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble > > > > > >>> is experimentally confirmed. > > > > > >>> The method is very effective. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are > > > > > >> corrupt, then why are you here? > > > > > > > > > > > > To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. > > > > > > But not "all scientist", of course. It's > > > > > > just your bunch of idiots in need of your > > > > > > "scientific method". Other domains didn't > > > > > > join your anti-common-sense crusade and > > > > > > common sense is still confirming them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? > > > > > What do they do? > > > > > > > > How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism? > > > > How did Galileo falsify absolute movement? > > > > Do historians do much experiments? > > > > > > > > For centuries science worked: theoreticians > > > > made theories, and when common sense said > > > > "they are reliable" people relied on them. > > > > > > That works fine (up to a point(*)) > > > > Yeah. Up to a point when scientists get insane > > and start to believe they are holy cows that > > have to be believed whatever they say. > > (not all of them, of course - only physicists). > > No, not that. And you're a queen of England. Yes, exactly that. > no way that kind of MONUMENTAL claim could be proved by simple juggling Jan, poor idiot. Rejecting euclidean geometry is monumental claim. 20 new dimensions is monumental claim. "Some idiots got crazy" is not monumental at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 08:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oib7ks$1vvn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423087 |
On 6/20/17 7:22 AM, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:51:38 PM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 12:14:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: >>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade >>>>>>>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble >>>>>>>> is experimentally confirmed. >>>>>>>> The method is very effective. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are >>>>>>> corrupt, then why are you here? >>>>>> >>>>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. >>>>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's >>>>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your >>>>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't >>>>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and >>>>>> common sense is still confirming them. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? >>>>> What do they do? >>>> >>>> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism? >>>> How did Galileo falsify absolute movement? >>>> Do historians do much experiments? >>>> >>>> For centuries science worked: theoreticians >>>> made theories, and when common sense said >>>> "they are reliable" people relied on them. >>> >>> That works fine (up to a point(*)) >> >> Yeah. Up to a point when scientists get insane >> and start to believe they are holy cows that >> have to be believed whatever they say. >> (not all of them, of course - only physicists). > > No, not that. This is a typical strawman argument. Reality is simply that > just like any other complicated subject (law, brain surgery, etc.) the > expectation is that in order to provide technical critiques that don't > immediately fall into the "not even wrong" category (like the one you > wrote above), a certain amount of knowledge of the subject is a prerequisite. > > The issue we have with your posts (besides their weird language) is that > you make absolutely MONUMENTAL claims with nothing to back them up except > a few lines of high-school-level generalities here and there. (Nothing > wrong with high schools, BTW.) Literally a few lines. And there is simply > no way that kind of MONUMENTAL claim could be proved by simple juggling > of certain first principles like "common sense" or "models theory" within > the space of an ASCII Internet forum paragraph. > > This sort of thing would be easily in the Nobel Prize range and, of course, > would have been done decades ago. People are not stupid. > > -- > Jan > It's simpler than that. Like a few of the cranks here who try to talk physics without having read anything on the subject, Maciej Wozniak rejects the expectation of training to understanding. Like the others, the desire is that clear thinking and a little intelligence will reveal all that is important in ANY subject. This is the plea of the arrogant everyman who despises the status of expertise as an intolerable elitism. And so he earnestly believes that physics (or ANY subject desired) should be accessible merely through application of common sense, and he MISTAKENLY believes that this is how great leaps in science have been done in the past. The opposite is in fact true -- the great leaps of science came from observations that completely confounded common sense, and that explanations that few AGAINST common sense were needed to account for them, and the validation of those counterintuitive ideas came with the predictions of then-unobserved phenomena which were then confirmed in experiment. Maciej rejects this in entirety, spewing that if confirmations of predictions of counter-intuitive explanations came from experiment, then the experiments are tainted and should not be regarded seriously, and that ONLY observations that are consistent with common-sense explanations should be called valid. That way, common sense is protected for the sake of the non-expert everyman. And he likes belonging to the small club of people who share this sentiment: Ken Seto, Henry aka Ralph, Ed Lake, etc. It's truly unfortunate that such passionate frauds even exist. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 06:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5482c1f3-296f-499a-b831-ccc1ceb49a4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423095 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 6/20/17 7:22 AM, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:51:38 PM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 12:14:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > >>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > >>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > >>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade > >>>>>>>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble > >>>>>>>> is experimentally confirmed. > >>>>>>>> The method is very effective. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are > >>>>>>> corrupt, then why are you here? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. > >>>>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's > >>>>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your > >>>>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't > >>>>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and > >>>>>> common sense is still confirming them. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? > >>>>> What do they do? > >>>> > >>>> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism? > >>>> How did Galileo falsify absolute movement? > >>>> Do historians do much experiments? > >>>> > >>>> For centuries science worked: theoreticians > >>>> made theories, and when common sense said > >>>> "they are reliable" people relied on them. > >>> > >>> That works fine (up to a point(*)) > >> > >> Yeah. Up to a point when scientists get insane > >> and start to believe they are holy cows that > >> have to be believed whatever they say. > >> (not all of them, of course - only physicists). > > > > No, not that. This is a typical strawman argument. Reality is simply that > > just like any other complicated subject (law, brain surgery, etc.) the > > expectation is that in order to provide technical critiques that don't > > immediately fall into the "not even wrong" category (like the one you > > wrote above), a certain amount of knowledge of the subject is a prerequisite. > > > > The issue we have with your posts (besides their weird language) is that > > you make absolutely MONUMENTAL claims with nothing to back them up except > > a few lines of high-school-level generalities here and there. (Nothing > > wrong with high schools, BTW.) Literally a few lines. And there is simply > > no way that kind of MONUMENTAL claim could be proved by simple juggling > > of certain first principles like "common sense" or "models theory" within > > the space of an ASCII Internet forum paragraph. > > > > This sort of thing would be easily in the Nobel Prize range and, of course, > > would have been done decades ago. People are not stupid. > > > > -- > > Jan > > > > It's simpler than that. Like a few of the cranks here who try to talk > physics without having read anything on the subject, Maciej Wozniak Rave, moron, and spit. What else can a moron do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 13:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oib8im$1thr$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423099 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik mlwozniak napisał: >> It's simpler than that. Like a few of the cranks here who try to talk >> physics without having read anything on the subject, Maciej Wozniak > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can a moron do. Tell him physics is not a 'subject'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 06:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32471054-60aa-425e-a836-c7af6171ccb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423100 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:39:40 UTC+2 użytkownik Eshiki Orakut napisał: > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik mlwozniak > napisał: > > >> It's simpler than that. Like a few of the cranks here who try to talk > >> physics without having read anything on the subject, Maciej Wozniak > > > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can a moron do. > > Tell him physics is not a 'subject'. Tell him himself if you wish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oibc4r$91r$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423099 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >> On 6/20/17 7:22 AM, JanPB wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:51:38 PM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 12:14:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: >>>>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >>>>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade >>>>>>>>>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble >>>>>>>>>> is experimentally confirmed. >>>>>>>>>> The method is very effective. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are >>>>>>>>> corrupt, then why are you here? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. >>>>>>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's >>>>>>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your >>>>>>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't >>>>>>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and >>>>>>>> common sense is still confirming them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? >>>>>>> What do they do? >>>>>> >>>>>> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism? >>>>>> How did Galileo falsify absolute movement? >>>>>> Do historians do much experiments? >>>>>> >>>>>> For centuries science worked: theoreticians >>>>>> made theories, and when common sense said >>>>>> "they are reliable" people relied on them. >>>>> >>>>> That works fine (up to a point(*)) >>>> >>>> Yeah. Up to a point when scientists get insane >>>> and start to believe they are holy cows that >>>> have to be believed whatever they say. >>>> (not all of them, of course - only physicists). >>> >>> No, not that. This is a typical strawman argument. Reality is simply that >>> just like any other complicated subject (law, brain surgery, etc.) the >>> expectation is that in order to provide technical critiques that don't >>> immediately fall into the "not even wrong" category (like the one you >>> wrote above), a certain amount of knowledge of the subject is a prerequisite. >>> >>> The issue we have with your posts (besides their weird language) is that >>> you make absolutely MONUMENTAL claims with nothing to back them up except >>> a few lines of high-school-level generalities here and there. (Nothing >>> wrong with high schools, BTW.) Literally a few lines. And there is simply >>> no way that kind of MONUMENTAL claim could be proved by simple juggling >>> of certain first principles like "common sense" or "models theory" within >>> the space of an ASCII Internet forum paragraph. >>> >>> This sort of thing would be easily in the Nobel Prize range and, of course, >>> would have been done decades ago. People are not stupid. >>> >>> -- >>> Jan >>> >> >> It's simpler than that. Like a few of the cranks here who try to talk >> physics without having read anything on the subject, Maciej Wozniak > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can a moron do. > I think spitting is pretty much all you do here, Maciej. So what's the goal of that? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 09:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1802ef46-b9da-4f4a-a2cb-91540d697dfa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423123 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 16:40:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > >> On 6/20/17 7:22 AM, JanPB wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:51:38 PM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 12:14:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > >>>>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 8:43:05 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 00:38:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > >>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 19 czerwca 2017 15:00:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > >>>>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> A physicist applies the scientific methodto persuade > >>>>>>>>>> (both others and himself) that his moronic mumble > >>>>>>>>>> is experimentally confirmed. > >>>>>>>>>> The method is very effective. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> If you think the scientific method is nonsense, and that all scientists are > >>>>>>>>> corrupt, then why are you here? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> To fight nonsense and fix the corruption. > >>>>>>>> But not "all scientist", of course. It's > >>>>>>>> just your bunch of idiots in need of your > >>>>>>>> "scientific method". Other domains didn't > >>>>>>>> join your anti-common-sense crusade and > >>>>>>>> common sense is still confirming them. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> How do you propose to fix anything? By catcalling? Has that ever worked? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And these scientists who don't use the scientific method, who are they? > >>>>>>> What do they do? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How did Copernicus falsify geocentrism? > >>>>>> How did Galileo falsify absolute movement? > >>>>>> Do historians do much experiments? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For centuries science worked: theoreticians > >>>>>> made theories, and when common sense said > >>>>>> "they are reliable" people relied on them. > >>>>> > >>>>> That works fine (up to a point(*)) > >>>> > >>>> Yeah. Up to a point when scientists get insane > >>>> and start to believe they are holy cows that > >>>> have to be believed whatever they say. > >>>> (not all of them, of course - only physicists). > >>> > >>> No, not that. This is a typical strawman argument. Reality is simply that > >>> just like any other complicated subject (law, brain surgery, etc.) the > >>> expectation is that in order to provide technical critiques that don't > >>> immediately fall into the "not even wrong" category (like the one you > >>> wrote above), a certain amount of knowledge of the subject is a prerequisite. > >>> > >>> The issue we have with your posts (besides their weird language) is that > >>> you make absolutely MONUMENTAL claims with nothing to back them up except > >>> a few lines of high-school-level generalities here and there. (Nothing > >>> wrong with high schools, BTW.) Literally a few lines. And there is simply > >>> no way that kind of MONUMENTAL claim could be proved by simple juggling > >>> of certain first principles like "common sense" or "models theory" within > >>> the space of an ASCII Internet forum paragraph. > >>> > >>> This sort of thing would be easily in the Nobel Prize range and, of course, > >>> would have been done decades ago. People are not stupid. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Jan > >>> > >> > >> It's simpler than that. Like a few of the cranks here who try to talk > >> physics without having read anything on the subject, Maciej Wozniak > > > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can a moron do. > > > > I think spitting is pretty much all you do here, Maciej. So what's the goal > of that? To let your bunch of idiots taste the the treatment you have for others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web