Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #596759
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. |
| Date | 2016-09-13 02:50 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <a46kad-rjs.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <nqvkdl$658$1@adenine.netfront.net> <nr4o26$noj$2@gioia.aioe.org> <57d65490$0$62241$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> <vq6jad-njp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <57d760e9$0$1233$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 9/12/2016 1:56 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 09/11/2016 07:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/9/2016 7:33 PM, Chan Rasjid wrote: >>>>> In the ancient days of the Yellow Emperor the gods and the spirits were >>>>> near to man. Man just keeps calm within his self and don't do - or do >>>>> "nothing". Within "nothing" everything exists and for those who are >>>>> blessed with favor with Heaven, things would "spring up" from within his >>>>> mind - all mysteries under the Heaven and Earth are all revealed. No >>>>> reading, no experimentation, "don't argue with me"! Pure knowledge >>>>> validated by the gods. No need of "guidance" about the equivalence >>>>> principle! No need of two postulates! No need of nothing! >>>>> >>>>> No teacher - the wise teaches himself through himself. >>>> >>>> Then what you discuss has nothing to do with science. Anyone who says >>>> truth can be found without experimentation and study is not doing science. >>> >>> And anyone who thinks it is possible to find all truth through science >>> knows not what science is. We are talking about you Boinker. >>> >>> Hint: The answer to the halting problem shows that what I say is true >>> and proven. Understand? Didn't think so. Just call me a kook then. >> >> The halting problem was proved to be undecidable by Turing using >> mathematics, a branch of science, in the 1930's. > > Absolutely correct Jimbo and exactly the point. Means that science > cannot discover all truth and it was proven by mathematics. That is a childish way to look at it. -- Jim Pennino
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Strange peer review editorial policy. Chan Rasjid <chanrasjid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 16:57 +0800
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-09 22:09 +1000
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 06:06 -0700
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 06:21 -0700
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 08:48 -0500
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 17:35 -0400
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 14:39 -0700
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 17:00 -0500
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 20:04 -0400
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 18:02 -0500
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Chan Rasjid <chanrasjid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 08:33 +0800
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 18:06 -0500
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 03:08 -0400
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-12 17:56 +0000
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 22:13 -0400
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 21:21 -0500
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 23:35 -0400
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-13 05:35 +0000
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-13 02:50 +0000
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 19:19 -0400
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-14 00:09 +0000
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 22:19 -0400
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-14 05:21 +0000
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 17:55 -0400
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 00:55 +0000
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 21:55 -0400
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 04:19 +0000
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:03 -0400
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:44 +0000
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 20:59 -0400
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 20:42 -0700
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 21:10 -0700
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 21:52 -0400
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 20:19 -0700
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 16:58 -0500
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 20:01 -0400
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Rgiose <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-10 08:59 -0500
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. Chan Rasjid <chanrasjid@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 22:16 +0800
Re: Strange peer review editorial policy. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 06:20 -0700
csiph-web