Re: Broken Science- a lot of published research is false.

Path	csiph.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date	Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:46:43 -0500
Message-ID	<5715C65F.19C4@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
Date	Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:47:11 -0700
From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To	starmaker@ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer	Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U)
MIME-Version	1.0
Newsgroups	rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, alt.astronomy
Subject	Re: Broken Science- a lot of published research is false.
References	<571521FC.6D7A@ix.netcom.com> <57153A01.29D1@ix.netcom.com> <57153BE4.674A@ix.netcom.com> <57158493.74A3@ix.netcom.com> <5715BCCA.759C@ix.netcom.com> <5715BE9A.136F@ix.netcom.com> <5715C3FA.60AD@ix.netcom.com> <5715C4B9.BFB@ix.netcom.com> <5715C513.7B6A@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
Lines	10
X-Usenet-Provider	http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host	108.219.229.47
X-Trace	sv3-fSDO3M95lp0yRdHTDqzVLlyeJ7evALzc1dDkBFXFWEiFXNk8yc32VZ5CmtLzRKigH5QADwhe8itVc0f!W4MrQ+9sJ8TBLXVTsnpLu7PXUJtUJjIIpBOb/wXnh3Z4/9PsisKdu3yT6R72DsMS8XO6WYLUmDJ1!pLjm/gPYjes=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info	Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info	Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter	1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes	1762
X-Received-Bytes	1874
X-Received-Body-CRC	3496070127
Xref	csiph.com rec.arts.sf.written:438300 sci.physics:571510 sci.physics.relativity:381934 alt.astronomy:284181

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw

We do not expect you to trust us

It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while
some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are
admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of what it is and what
it isn't. Also, because some articles may contain errors, please do not
use Wikipedia to make critical decisions.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Broken Science- a lot of published research is false. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-18 11:05 -0700
  Re: Broken Science- a lot of published research is false. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 11:16 -0700
    Re: Broken Science- a lot of published research is false. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-18 14:14 -0700
  Re: Broken Science- a lot of published research is false. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-18 12:48 -0700
    Re: Broken Science- a lot of published research is false. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-18 12:56 -0700
      Re: Broken Science- a lot of published research is false. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-18 18:06 -0700
        Re: Broken Science- a lot of published research is false. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-18 22:06 -0700
          Re: Broken Science- a lot of published research is false. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-18 22:14 -0700
            Re: Broken Science- a lot of published research is false. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-18 22:36 -0700
              Re: Broken Science- a lot of published research is false. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-18 22:40 -0700
                Re: Broken Science- a lot of published research is false. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-18 22:41 -0700
                Re: Broken Science- a lot of published research is false. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-18 22:47 -0700

csiph-web