Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #419246 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-12 13:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-05-16 16:15 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 63 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-12 13:11 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 15:18 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-13 06:37 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 13:54 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-14 06:43 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 16:59 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 05:56 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 08:03 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 10:06 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:14 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 15:20 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-13 02:37 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 16:05 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-13 06:52 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 16:14 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-13 09:21 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-14 12:47 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-14 15:11 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 13:56 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-14 06:50 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-14 13:58 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-14 15:19 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 17:02 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 06:07 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 08:24 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 09:39 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 11:52 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 10:15 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:55 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 04:21 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:43 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 12:32 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 16:14 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-17 05:50 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:15 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-15 23:26 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-12 20:16 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-13 07:07 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 01:41 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-13 20:01 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 21:17 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:57 +0200
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 07:14 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 16:37 +0200
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-13 14:54 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:01 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-13 15:08 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 14:39 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 04:51 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 06:22 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-17 05:44 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:07 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-17 18:41 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-16 15:27 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:42 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 12:29 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 16:13 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-17 05:57 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:18 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-17 18:30 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:48 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 12:36 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 16:15 -0500
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 13:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <of9nqt$1qr4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419418 |
kenseto wrote: > So according to you what is the scientific method? How does the PT > violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the > universe before the development of the math model violate the scientific > method?????? We dont know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 15:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <of9sif$itm$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #419419 |
The nymshifting troll, now pretending to be Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> writes: >kenseto wrote: >> So according to you what is the scientific method? How does the PT >> violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the >> universe before the development of the math model violate the scientific >> method?????? >We dont know. Maybe you don't know, nymshifter, and it's obvious Stupid Ken doesn't know, but many of the other people do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 17:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofak4v$1ei0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419418 |
On 5/14/17 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/13/17 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description. The rules of the Pyramid Technique are as follows: >>>> >>>> So you are saying you do not like or use the scientific method, which is >>>> completely different than your “Pyramid Technique". >>> >>> The pyramid technique (PT) includes the scientific method based on math alone. >> >> The scientific method is not based on math alone. >> Good heavens, Ken, you don’t even know what the scientific method IS???? > > So according to you what is the scientific method? See??? You have to ASK what the scientific method is, because you have no idea what it is. Here you are on a science newsgroup, PRETENDING to be doing science, and you have no idea even what the scientific method IS. > How does the PT violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the universe before > the development of the math model violate the scientific method?????? > >> >>> The PT specified the development of the physical model before the development of the math model. >>> >>>> >>>> But since science is DEFINED as the investigatory endeavor that uses the >>>> scientific method, then isn't it improper to say that using the "Pyramid >>>> Technique" is doing science? Maybe you could call it PTology, but since >>>> it's not the scientific method, then it's not science. Look up science >>>> in the dictionary. >>> >>> Not at all....the PT will lead to a physical theory of everything quickly...eg Model Mechanics was developed within a few years. With the current scientific >>> method (mathematical method) it is vertically impossible to come up with a TOE. Why? Because you will get a zoo of math models and each will give a limited >>> description of a certain aspect of our universe. >>> >> >> Ken, it's still not science. It's PTology, but since it's not the >> scientific method, it can't be science. >> > > Why? Because you say so???? No, because it's NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, about which you know NOTHING. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 06:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d05d8040-f657-4a6c-8490-86c5137aedb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419453 |
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:02:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/14/17 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/13/17 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description. The rules of the Pyramid Technique are as follows: > >>>> > >>>> So you are saying you do not like or use the scientific method, which is > >>>> completely different than your “Pyramid Technique". > >>> > >>> The pyramid technique (PT) includes the scientific method based on math alone. > >> > >> The scientific method is not based on math alone. > >> Good heavens, Ken, you don’t even know what the scientific method IS???? > > > > So according to you what is the scientific method? > > See??? You have to ASK what the scientific method is, because you have > no idea what it is. > > Here you are on a science newsgroup, PRETENDING to be doing science, and > you have no idea even what the scientific method IS. > > > How does the PT violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the universe before > the development of the math model violate the scientific method?????? How does PT or Model Mechanics violated the Scientific Method????? > > > >> > >>> The PT specified the development of the physical model before the development of the math model. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> But since science is DEFINED as the investigatory endeavor that uses the > >>>> scientific method, then isn't it improper to say that using the "Pyramid > >>>> Technique" is doing science? Maybe you could call it PTology, but since > >>>> it's not the scientific method, then it's not science. Look up science > >>>> in the dictionary. > >>> > >>> Not at all....the PT will lead to a physical theory of everything quickly...eg Model Mechanics was developed within a few years. With the current scientific > >>> method (mathematical method) it is vertically impossible to come up with a TOE. Why? Because you will get a zoo of math models and each will give a limited > >>> description of a certain aspect of our universe. > >>> > >> > >> Ken, it's still not science. It's PTology, but since it's not the > >> scientific method, it can't be science. > >> > > > > Why? Because you say so???? > > No, because it's NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, about which you know NOTHING. It is likely that you don’t know what Scientific Method means---so you just talk nonsenses that PT and Model Mechanics violates Scientific Method. PT is the new improved Scientific Method....it enables me to arrive at a new theory of gravity and a new theory on the origin of our universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 08:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofca5r$12k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419508 |
On 5/15/17 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:02:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/14/17 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/13/17 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> So according to you what is the scientific method? >> >> See??? You have to ASK what the scientific method is, because you have >> no idea what it is. >> >> Here you are on a science newsgroup, PRETENDING to be doing science, and >> you have no idea even what the scientific method IS. >> >>> How does the PT violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the universe before > the development of the math model violate the scientific method?????? > > How does PT or Model Mechanics violated the Scientific Method????? Ken, it is NOT the scientific method, it is your own method. Since you are not using the scientific method, then you are not doing science. Pure and simple. >>> >>>> Ken, it's still not science. It's PTology, but since it's not the >>>> scientific method, it can't be science. >>>> >>> >>> Why? Because you say so???? >> >> No, because it's NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, about which you know NOTHING. > > It is likely that you don’t know what Scientific Method means---so you just > talk nonsenses that PT and Model Mechanics violates Scientific Method. Ken, stop playing games. You PRETEND to be doing science when you don't even know what doing science involves. And then you throw a tantrum when someone won't teach you fourth grade science on a newsgroup, and you say that they don't know what science is either. I'm not the one who refuses to read books. YOU are. > PT is the new improved Scientific Method....it enables me to arrive at a new > theory of gravity and a new theory on the origin of our universe. Ken, if you want to say that you have a better method for doing things and you call it the Pyramid Technique, that's fine. It's all yours. It's JUST NOT SCIENCE. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 09:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f2edcfc-2e66-4180-8e57-985cd0bf1221@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419511 |
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:24:14 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/15/17 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:02:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/14/17 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/13/17 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> So according to you what is the scientific method? > >> > >> See??? You have to ASK what the scientific method is, because you have > >> no idea what it is. > >> > >> Here you are on a science newsgroup, PRETENDING to be doing science, and > >> you have no idea even what the scientific method IS. > >> > >>> How does the PT violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the universe before > > the development of the math model violate the scientific method?????? > > > > How does PT or Model Mechanics violated the Scientific Method????? > > Ken, it is NOT the scientific method, it is your own method. Since you > are not using the scientific method, then you are not doing science. > Pure and simple. Here are two definitions of Scientific Method: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it Which of these two definitions says that the current method for positing the dark matter and dark energy is scientific? And what in these definitions says that the PT and Model Mechanics explanation for dark matter and dark energy are not scientific?? > > >>> > >>>> Ken, it's still not science. It's PTology, but since it's not the > >>>> scientific method, it can't be science. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Why? Because you say so???? > >> > >> No, because it's NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, about which you know NOTHING. > > > > It is likely that you don’t know what Scientific Method means---so you just > > talk nonsenses that PT and Model Mechanics violates Scientific Method. > > Ken, stop playing games. You PRETEND to be doing science when you don't > even know what doing science involves. And then you throw a tantrum when > someone won't teach you fourth grade science on a newsgroup, and you say > that they don't know what science is either. > > I'm not the one who refuses to read books. YOU are. > > > PT is the new improved Scientific Method....it enables me to arrive at a new > > theory of gravity and a new theory on the origin of our universe. > > Ken, if you want to say that you have a better method for doing things > and you call it the Pyramid Technique, that's fine. It's all yours. It's > JUST NOT SCIENCE. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 11:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofcmd9$ok7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419530 |
On 5/15/17 11:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:24:14 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/15/17 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:02:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/14/17 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/17 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> So according to you what is the scientific method? >>>> >>>> See??? You have to ASK what the scientific method is, because you have >>>> no idea what it is. >>>> >>>> Here you are on a science newsgroup, PRETENDING to be doing science, and >>>> you have no idea even what the scientific method IS. >>>> >>>>> How does the PT violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the universe before >>> the development of the math model violate the scientific method?????? >>> >>> How does PT or Model Mechanics violated the Scientific Method????? >> >> Ken, it is NOT the scientific method, it is your own method. Since you >> are not using the scientific method, then you are not doing science. >> Pure and simple. > > Here are two definitions of Scientific Method: > a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in > systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. > > a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant > data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it Neither of these have any depth as descriptions of the scientific method. Try to find something a little richer than a dictionary definition. > > Which of these two definitions says that the current method for positing the dark matter and dark energy is > scientific? And what in these definitions says that the PT and Model Mechanics explanation for dark matter > and dark energy are not scientific?? Ken, have you tried Googling "scientific method" to find something a little more in depth about the scientific method? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 10:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5e3fd5b-615c-4ab3-a47f-68d6341978b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419535 |
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 12:53:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/15/17 11:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:24:14 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/15/17 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:02:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/14/17 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/13/17 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> So according to you what is the scientific method? > >>>> > >>>> See??? You have to ASK what the scientific method is, because you have > >>>> no idea what it is. > >>>> > >>>> Here you are on a science newsgroup, PRETENDING to be doing science, and > >>>> you have no idea even what the scientific method IS. > >>>> > >>>>> How does the PT violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the universe before > >>> the development of the math model violate the scientific method?????? > >>> > >>> How does PT or Model Mechanics violated the Scientific Method????? > >> > >> Ken, it is NOT the scientific method, it is your own method. Since you > >> are not using the scientific method, then you are not doing science. > >> Pure and simple. > > > > Here are two definitions of Scientific Method: > > a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in > > systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. > > > > a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant > > data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it > > Neither of these have any depth as descriptions of the scientific > method. Try to find something a little richer than a dictionary definition. So you have your own definition for scientific Method and you don’t want to share it with anybody. Then you claimed that my method of PT for doing science is not scientific according to your own private definition. I suggest that you go see a Shrink. > > > > > Which of these two definitions says that the current method for positing the dark matter and dark energy is > > scientific? And what in these definitions says that the PT and Model Mechanics explanation for dark matter > > and dark energy are not scientific?? > > Ken, have you tried Googling "scientific method" to find something a > little more in depth about the scientific method? > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 12:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofcq3d$va5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419542 |
On 5/15/17 12:15 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 12:53:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/15/17 11:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:24:14 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/15/17 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:02:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/14/17 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/17 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> So according to you what is the scientific method? >>>>>> >>>>>> See??? You have to ASK what the scientific method is, because you have >>>>>> no idea what it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here you are on a science newsgroup, PRETENDING to be doing science, and >>>>>> you have no idea even what the scientific method IS. >>>>>> >>>>>>> How does the PT violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the universe before >>>>> the development of the math model violate the scientific method?????? >>>>> >>>>> How does PT or Model Mechanics violated the Scientific Method????? >>>> >>>> Ken, it is NOT the scientific method, it is your own method. Since you >>>> are not using the scientific method, then you are not doing science. >>>> Pure and simple. >>> >>> Here are two definitions of Scientific Method: >>> a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in >>> systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. >>> >>> a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant >>> data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it >> >> Neither of these have any depth as descriptions of the scientific >> method. Try to find something a little richer than a dictionary definition. > > So you have your own definition for scientific Method and you don’t want to share it with anybody. No, Ken, it is not my own definition. It is a well-known description of the scientific method that is available in a wide spectrum of books and online web pages, and which many people understand. You do not understand what it is, and you don't want to even try googling it to find out what it is. You want someone to share it with you here. You are completely incapable of researching anything outside of your own head. And you think you are competent to do science, when you can't even remember from high school what the scientific method is? And you can't do 5th grade algebra? > Then you claimed that my method of PT for doing science is not scientific according to your own > private definition. I suggest that you go see a Shrink. > >> >>> >>> Which of these two definitions says that the current method for positing the dark matter and dark energy is >>> scientific? And what in these definitions says that the PT and Model Mechanics explanation for dark matter >>> and dark energy are not scientific?? >> >> Ken, have you tried Googling "scientific method" to find something a >> little more in depth about the scientific method? Tell you what, Ken. When you move into a nursing home, try ringing the little bell in your room, and when the attendant comes, ask her what the scientific method is. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 04:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f07eea75-4047-4cab-b091-9ee065807b3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419545 |
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 1:56:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/15/17 12:15 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 12:53:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/15/17 11:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:24:14 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/15/17 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:02:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/14/17 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/13/17 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> So according to you what is the scientific method? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> See??? You have to ASK what the scientific method is, because you have > >>>>>> no idea what it is. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here you are on a science newsgroup, PRETENDING to be doing science, and > >>>>>> you have no idea even what the scientific method IS. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> How does the PT violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the universe before > >>>>> the development of the math model violate the scientific method?????? > >>>>> > >>>>> How does PT or Model Mechanics violated the Scientific Method????? > >>>> > >>>> Ken, it is NOT the scientific method, it is your own method. Since you > >>>> are not using the scientific method, then you are not doing science. > >>>> Pure and simple. > >>> > >>> Here are two definitions of Scientific Method: > >>> a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in > >>> systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. > >>> > >>> a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant > >>> data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it > >> > >> Neither of these have any depth as descriptions of the scientific > >> method. Try to find something a little richer than a dictionary definition. > > > > So you have your own definition for scientific Method and you don’t want to share it with anybody. > > No, Ken, it is not my own definition. It is a well-known description of > the scientific method that is available in a wide spectrum of books and > online web pages, and which many people understand. > You do not understand what it is, and you don't want to even try > googling it to find out what it is. You want someone to share it with > you here. Idiot I did googled and found the two definitions. You are a waste of time. > > You are completely incapable of researching anything outside of your own > head. And you think you are competent to do science, when you can't even > remember from high school what the scientific method is? And you can't > do 5th grade algebra? > > > Then you claimed that my method of PT for doing science is not scientific according to your own > > private definition. I suggest that you go see a Shrink. > > > >> > >>> > >>> Which of these two definitions says that the current method for positing the dark matter and dark energy is > >>> scientific? And what in these definitions says that the PT and Model Mechanics explanation for dark matter > >>> and dark energy are not scientific?? > >> > >> Ken, have you tried Googling "scientific method" to find something a > >> little more in depth about the scientific method? > > Tell you what, Ken. When you move into a nursing home, try ringing the > little bell in your room, and when the attendant comes, ask her what the > scientific method is. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 10:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <off6n6$o2j$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419617 |
On 5/16/17 6:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 1:56:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/15/17 12:15 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 12:53:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/15/17 11:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:24:14 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/15/17 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:02:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/14/17 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/17 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> So according to you what is the scientific method? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See??? You have to ASK what the scientific method is, because you have >>>>>>>> no idea what it is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here you are on a science newsgroup, PRETENDING to be doing science, and >>>>>>>> you have no idea even what the scientific method IS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How does the PT violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the universe before >>>>>>> the development of the math model violate the scientific method?????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How does PT or Model Mechanics violated the Scientific Method????? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, it is NOT the scientific method, it is your own method. Since you >>>>>> are not using the scientific method, then you are not doing science. >>>>>> Pure and simple. >>>>> >>>>> Here are two definitions of Scientific Method: >>>>> a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in >>>>> systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. >>>>> >>>>> a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant >>>>> data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it >>>> >>>> Neither of these have any depth as descriptions of the scientific >>>> method. Try to find something a little richer than a dictionary definition. >>> >>> So you have your own definition for scientific Method and you don’t want to share it with anybody. >> >> No, Ken, it is not my own definition. It is a well-known description of >> the scientific method that is available in a wide spectrum of books and >> online web pages, and which many people understand. > >> You do not understand what it is, and you don't want to even try >> googling it to find out what it is. You want someone to share it with >> you here. > > Idiot I did googled and found the two definitions. You are a waste of time. Find something with Google that's a little richer than a two line definition. >> >> You are completely incapable of researching anything outside of your own >> head. And you think you are competent to do science, when you can't even >> remember from high school what the scientific method is? And you can't >> do 5th grade algebra? >> >>> Then you claimed that my method of PT for doing science is not scientific according to your own >>> private definition. I suggest that you go see a Shrink. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which of these two definitions says that the current method for positing the dark matter and dark energy is >>>>> scientific? And what in these definitions says that the PT and Model Mechanics explanation for dark matter >>>>> and dark energy are not scientific?? >>>> >>>> Ken, have you tried Googling "scientific method" to find something a >>>> little more in depth about the scientific method? >> >> Tell you what, Ken. When you move into a nursing home, try ringing the >> little bell in your room, and when the attendant comes, ask her what the >> scientific method is. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc869853-1d0c-4e8f-be8d-2a9b5e8b0279@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419647 |
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:43:37 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/16/17 6:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 1:56:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/15/17 12:15 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 12:53:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/15/17 11:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:24:14 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/15/17 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:02:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/14/17 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/17 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> So according to you what is the scientific method? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> See??? You have to ASK what the scientific method is, because you have > >>>>>>>> no idea what it is. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Here you are on a science newsgroup, PRETENDING to be doing science, and > >>>>>>>> you have no idea even what the scientific method IS. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> How does the PT violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the universe before > >>>>>>> the development of the math model violate the scientific method?????? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> How does PT or Model Mechanics violated the Scientific Method????? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ken, it is NOT the scientific method, it is your own method. Since you > >>>>>> are not using the scientific method, then you are not doing science. > >>>>>> Pure and simple. > >>>>> > >>>>> Here are two definitions of Scientific Method: > >>>>> a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in > >>>>> systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. > >>>>> > >>>>> a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant > >>>>> data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it > >>>> > >>>> Neither of these have any depth as descriptions of the scientific > >>>> method. Try to find something a little richer than a dictionary definition. > >>> > >>> So you have your own definition for scientific Method and you don’t want to share it with anybody. > >> > >> No, Ken, it is not my own definition. It is a well-known description of > >> the scientific method that is available in a wide spectrum of books and > >> online web pages, and which many people understand. > > > >> You do not understand what it is, and you don't want to even try > >> googling it to find out what it is. You want someone to share it with > >> you here. > > > > Idiot I did googled and found the two definitions. You are a waste of time. > > Find something with Google that's a little richer than a two line > definition. Why don’t you do it? Why don’t you provide your version of scientific method? > > >> > >> You are completely incapable of researching anything outside of your own > >> head. And you think you are competent to do science, when you can't even > >> remember from high school what the scientific method is? And you can't > >> do 5th grade algebra? > >> > >>> Then you claimed that my method of PT for doing science is not scientific according to your own > >>> private definition. I suggest that you go see a Shrink. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Which of these two definitions says that the current method for positing the dark matter and dark energy is > >>>>> scientific? And what in these definitions says that the PT and Model Mechanics explanation for dark matter > >>>>> and dark energy are not scientific?? > >>>> > >>>> Ken, have you tried Googling "scientific method" to find something a > >>>> little more in depth about the scientific method? > >> > >> Tell you what, Ken. When you move into a nursing home, try ringing the > >> little bell in your room, and when the attendant comes, ask her what the > >> scientific method is. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 16:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <offq36$1qdk$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419664 |
On 5/16/17 2:32 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:43:37 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/16/17 6:21 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 1:56:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/15/17 12:15 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 12:53:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/15/17 11:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:24:14 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/15/17 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:02:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/17 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/17 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> So according to you what is the scientific method? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> See??? You have to ASK what the scientific method is, because you have >>>>>>>>>> no idea what it is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here you are on a science newsgroup, PRETENDING to be doing science, and >>>>>>>>>> you have no idea even what the scientific method IS. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How does the PT violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the universe before >>>>>>>>> the development of the math model violate the scientific method?????? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How does PT or Model Mechanics violated the Scientific Method????? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ken, it is NOT the scientific method, it is your own method. Since you >>>>>>>> are not using the scientific method, then you are not doing science. >>>>>>>> Pure and simple. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here are two definitions of Scientific Method: >>>>>>> a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in >>>>>>> systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant >>>>>>> data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it >>>>>> >>>>>> Neither of these have any depth as descriptions of the scientific >>>>>> method. Try to find something a little richer than a dictionary definition. >>>>> >>>>> So you have your own definition for scientific Method and you don’t want to share it with anybody. >>>> >>>> No, Ken, it is not my own definition. It is a well-known description of >>>> the scientific method that is available in a wide spectrum of books and >>>> online web pages, and which many people understand. >>> >>>> You do not understand what it is, and you don't want to even try >>>> googling it to find out what it is. You want someone to share it with >>>> you here. >>> >>> Idiot I did googled and found the two definitions. You are a waste of time. >> >> Find something with Google that's a little richer than a two line >> definition. > > Why don’t you do it? Why don’t you provide your version of scientific method? Because I prefer it when you demonstrate your own complete incompetence at doing any research to learn anything other than what people tell you here. >> >>>> >>>> You are completely incapable of researching anything outside of your own >>>> head. And you think you are competent to do science, when you can't even >>>> remember from high school what the scientific method is? And you can't >>>> do 5th grade algebra? >>>> >>>>> Then you claimed that my method of PT for doing science is not scientific according to your own >>>>> private definition. I suggest that you go see a Shrink. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which of these two definitions says that the current method for positing the dark matter and dark energy is >>>>>>> scientific? And what in these definitions says that the PT and Model Mechanics explanation for dark matter >>>>>>> and dark energy are not scientific?? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, have you tried Googling "scientific method" to find something a >>>>>> little more in depth about the scientific method? >>>> >>>> Tell you what, Ken. When you move into a nursing home, try ringing the >>>> little bell in your room, and when the attendant comes, ask her what the >>>> scientific method is. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-17 05:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a338ad37-6fa1-41f4-827f-d93d9504030d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419679 |
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:14:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/16/17 2:32 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:43:37 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/16/17 6:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 1:56:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/15/17 12:15 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 12:53:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/15/17 11:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:24:14 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/15/17 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:02:10 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/17 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/17 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> So according to you what is the scientific method? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> See??? You have to ASK what the scientific method is, because you have > >>>>>>>>>> no idea what it is. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Here you are on a science newsgroup, PRETENDING to be doing science, and > >>>>>>>>>> you have no idea even what the scientific method IS. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> How does the PT violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the universe before > >>>>>>>>> the development of the math model violate the scientific method?????? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> How does PT or Model Mechanics violated the Scientific Method????? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ken, it is NOT the scientific method, it is your own method. Since you > >>>>>>>> are not using the scientific method, then you are not doing science. > >>>>>>>> Pure and simple. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Here are two definitions of Scientific Method: > >>>>>>> a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in > >>>>>>> systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant > >>>>>>> data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Neither of these have any depth as descriptions of the scientific > >>>>>> method. Try to find something a little richer than a dictionary definition. > >>>>> > >>>>> So you have your own definition for scientific Method and you don’t want to share it with anybody. > >>>> > >>>> No, Ken, it is not my own definition. It is a well-known description of > >>>> the scientific method that is available in a wide spectrum of books and > >>>> online web pages, and which many people understand. > >>> > >>>> You do not understand what it is, and you don't want to even try > >>>> googling it to find out what it is. You want someone to share it with > >>>> you here. > >>> > >>> Idiot I did googled and found the two definitions. You are a waste of time. > >> > >> Find something with Google that's a little richer than a two line > >> definition. > > > > Why don’t you do it? Why don’t you provide your version of scientific method? > > Because I prefer it when you demonstrate your own complete incompetence > at doing any research to learn anything other than what people tell you > here. No.....because you were caught lying. You don’t know any different version definition for ”scientific method” than the two definitions I quoted. You are a sad sack of shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-17 11:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofhsuh$14dm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419723 |
On 5/17/17 7:50 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> hy don’t you do it? Why don’t you provide your version of scientific method? >> Because I prefer it when you demonstrate your own complete incompetence >> at doing any research to learn anything other than what people tell you >> here. > No.....because you were caught lying. You don’t know any different version definition for ”scientific method” than the two definitions > I quoted. You are a sad sack of shit. Happy reading, Ken: http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/SciMeth/ https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/method.htm Sad, so sad, that you are completely incapable of doing research on your own and rely on being fed with a spoon in bed. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 23:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ddc49d0d-e18c-483d-9a44-701ee1923979@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419535 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 maja 2017 18:53:00 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > Neither of these have any depth as descriptions of the scientific > method. Try to find something a little richer than a dictionary definition. Or simply listen to toy-making experts of "how science works".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 20:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rpudnZ9w1NbYw4vEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #419246 |
On 5/12/17 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > In the past 100 years theoretical physics and cosmology development have been > conducted almost exclusively on a mathematical basis. This is JUST PLAIN FALSE. You merely display your complete and comprehensive IGNORANCE of the subject. Theoretical physics has always been mathematical, but the primary validation of the mathematical models is comparison with experiment -- not "mathematical" at all. Ditto for cosmology. Back in the 1970s, it was not unusual for a cosmologist to ignore a factor of 4 pi as if it were unity. That sort of "approximation" is a thing of the past, and today there are MANY cosmological observations that determine parameters of cosmological models to 1% or so. > The rules of > mathematics invented to do these theoretical developments are arbitrary and > have no physical limits. Again PURE IGNORANCE on your part. > I believe that there is one description of our universe that can give > physical explanations for all the observed processes and interactions in our > universe.[....] Hopeless. Your IGNORANCE makes it utterly impossible for you to come up with a valid cosmological model. Not only do you not know what you don't know, you don't even know what is known. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 07:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72697d80-3b67-4b47-b254-d4d4e1a7d176@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419278 |
On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:15:55 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 5/12/17 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > > In the past 100 years theoretical physics and cosmology development have been > > conducted almost exclusively on a mathematical basis. > > This is JUST PLAIN FALSE. You merely display your complete and comprehensive > IGNORANCE of the subject. Hand-waving is not a valid argument.....the current mathematical developments of the String Theories support my claims. > Theoretical physics has always been mathematical, but the primary validation of > the mathematical models is comparison with experiment -- not "mathematical" at > all. Ditto for cosmology. Yes, so what is your point? > > Back in the 1970s, it was not unusual for a cosmologist to > ignore a factor of 4 pi as if it were unity. That sort of > "approximation" is a thing of the past, and today there are > MANY cosmological observations that determine parameters of > cosmological models to 1% or so. > > > The rules of > > mathematics invented to do these theoretical developments are arbitrary and > > have no physical limits. > > Again PURE IGNORANCE on your part. Again hand-waving is not a valid argument. > > > I believe that there is one description of our universe that can give > > physical explanations for all the observed processes and interactions in our > > universe.[....] > > Hopeless. Your IGNORANCE makes it utterly impossible for you to come up with a > valid cosmological model. Not only do you not know what you don't know, you > don't even know what is known. You are wrong.....I did developed a new theory on the origin of the universe and it is described in Chapter 6 of my book. I don’t understand why you made wild claims “that it is it utterly impossible for you to come up with a valid cosmological model.” Why don’t you read my book before making these IGNORANT comments?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 01:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <of5o8b$hfv$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #419246 |
Of course you're going to oppose math, Ken. That's because you can't even solve the simple problems, such as (-6)/(-2), or know what the left and right sides of graphs mean, much less do the math necessary for GR or something. kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >The end result after the application of the Pyramid Technique is a unified >theory of everything called Model Mechanics. Which is a complete disaster of a total failure of physics, of course. >For a limited time only the complete content of this book is >available in the following link: Still can't convince anyone to buy your book? Can you convince anyone to read it for free? >http://www.modelmechanіcs.org/2016ibook.pdf Well, you really need to fix your link if you ever want anyone to read your book for free, assuming there actually are any takers...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 20:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49574b31-b3ea-4f42-b5ad-0c98b07613b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419281 |
On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:41:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > Of course you're going to oppose math, Ken. That's because you can't even > solve the simple problems, such as (-6)/(-2), or know what the left and > right sides of graphs mean, much less do the math necessary for GR or > something. > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >The end result after the application of the Pyramid Technique is a unified > >theory of everything called Model Mechanics. > > Which is a complete disaster of a total failure of physics, of course. > > >For a limited time only the complete content of this book is > >available in the following link: > > Still can't convince anyone to buy your book? Can you convince anyone to > read it for free? > > >http://www.modelmechanіcs.org/2016ibook.pdf > > Well, you really need to fix your link if you ever want anyone to read > your book for free, assuming there actually are any takers... The link is designed to exclude moron like you from viewing :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web