Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #593345 > unrolled thread

Show us your proof

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Show us your proof Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 21:10 -0700
    Re: Show us your proof edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-16 05:37 -0700
      Re: Show us your proof Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 22:07 -0700
        Re: Show us your proof edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 10:44 -0700
          Re: Show us your proof James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 11:28 -0700
    Re: Show us your proof Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-16 07:54 -0500
      Re: Show us your proof Gamma <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-16 11:47 -0500
        Re: Show us your proof Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-18 18:51 -0500
    Re: Show us your proof Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 20:38 -0700
    Re: Show us your proof Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 21:18 -0700
    Re: Show us your Spoof Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-18 22:35 -0500

#593345 — Show us your proof

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:24:07 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:

> >> Sure. You have yet to come up with a process that skips the gas
> >> phase and creates drops.
> >
> > Frank, you are starting to sound just as dumb as Sergio.
> >
> > McGinn has always been adamant about the fact that the gas phase
> > doesn't start until it acheives boiling,
> 
> that is where McGinn is obviously wrong to anyone who knows science, and 
> it brands him as a kook and a liar

Uh, McGinn is right.  If you don't have reproducible evidence then all you got is anecdote.  And anecdote is worthless.



> > which is much higher than is
> > available in the atmosphere.  You have to substantiate that there is
> > a gas phase at ambient temps
> 
> no you do not.  McGinn has to prove it. McGinn is posting as Denk.

LOL.  You have to prove your own position also, dumbass.  

> > before you go asking McGinn to explain
> > why he assumes there is not one.
> 
> wrong, McGinn has to explain his theory, which he hasent done, because 
> he cannot do it.

LOL.  Why are you so emotional about a theory that you claim has not been presented?


> > Your imagination isn't evidence.
> 
> it is McGinns imagination.
> 
> >
> > You have to be much clearer on the distinction between what you
> > believe and what you know.
> 
> 
> which you are unable to do, McGinn Denk.

You are the one making the fuss. Go ahead.  Show us your proof.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#593359

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 12:10:53 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> 
M<cginn (AKA Claudius Denk) writes
> Uh, McGinn is right.  If you don't have reproducible evidence
> then all you got is anecdote.  And anecdote is worthless.
> 
That's exactly correct. All you have is anecdote Mcgin

I have a simple test for your "theory"
Please explain ice sublimation.

> You are the one making the fuss. Go ahead.  Show us your proof.

In science the burden of proof is always on the proposer
of the new theory. So where is your evidence?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593636

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:37:27 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 12:10:53 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > 
> M<cginn (AKA Claudius Denk) writes
> > Uh, McGinn is right.  If you don't have reproducible evidence
> > then all you got is anecdote.  And anecdote is worthless.
> > 
> That's exactly correct. All you have is anecdote Mcgin
> 
> I have a simple test for your "theory"
> Please explain ice sublimation.

How is this a test?  Explain.

> 
> > You are the one making the fuss. Go ahead.  Show us your proof.
> 
> In science the burden of proof is always on the proposer
> of the new theory. So where is your evidence?

Duck, dodge, weave.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593672

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 1:07:22 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:37:27 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 12:10:53 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > 
> > M<cginn (AKA Claudius Denk) writes
> > > Uh, McGinn is right.  If you don't have reproducible evidence
> > > then all you got is anecdote.  And anecdote is worthless.
> > > 
> > That's exactly correct. All you have is anecdote Mcgin
> > 
> > I have a simple test for your "theory"
> > Please explain ice sublimation.
> 
> How is this a test?  Explain.

Mind too confused to understand the challenge even? let me help.

You claim water cannot exist in the atmosphere except as water
unless it is boiling.

So please explain how ice can disappear even on a cold winter's day.


> 
> > 
> > > You are the one making the fuss. Go ahead.  Show us your proof.
> > 
> > In science the burden of proof is always on the proposer
> > of the new theory. So where is your evidence?
> 
> Duck, dodge, weave.

That's all you ever do JM.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593677

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 10:45:02 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 1:07:22 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:37:27 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 12:10:53 AM UTC-4, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > > 
> > > M<cginn (AKA Claudius Denk) writes
> > > > Uh, McGinn is right.  If you don't have reproducible evidence
> > > > then all you got is anecdote.  And anecdote is worthless.
> > > > 
> > > That's exactly correct. All you have is anecdote Mcgin
> > > 
> > > I have a simple test for your "theory"
> > > Please explain ice sublimation.
> > 
> > How is this a test?  Explain.
> 
> Mind too confused to understand the challenge even? let me help.
> 
> You claim water cannot exist in the atmosphere except as water
> unless it is boiling.
> 
> So please explain how ice can disappear even on a cold winter's day.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > You are the one making the fuss. Go ahead.  Show us your proof.
> > > 
> > > In science the burden of proof is always on the proposer
> > > of the new theory. So where is your evidence?
> > 
> > Duck, dodge, weave.
> 
> That's all you ever do JM.

Putting words in Denk's mouth?

Quote him directly, you dingbat.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593363

On 8/15/2016 11:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:24:07 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>
>>>> Sure. You have yet to come up with a process that skips the gas
>>>> phase and creates drops.
>>>
>>> Frank, you are starting to sound just as dumb as Sergio.
>>>
>>> McGinn has always been adamant about the fact that the gas phase
>>> doesn't start until it acheives boiling,
>>
>> that is where McGinn is obviously wrong to anyone who knows science, and
>> it brands him as a kook and a liar
>
> Uh, McGinn is right.  If I don't have reproducible evidence then all I got is anecdote.  And anecdote is worthless.
>

Liar. all you have is troll poop and lies.

>
>>> which is much higher than is
>>> available in the atmosphere.  You have to substantiate that there is
>>> a gas phase at ambient temps
>>
>> no you do not.  McGinn has to prove it. McGinn is posting as Denk.
>
> LOL.  I have to prove my own position also, dumbass.


Liar.  You are just a dumb troll,  who dosent know any high school algebra.


>
>>> before you go asking McGinn to explain
>>> why he assumes there is not one.
>>
>> wrong, McGinn has to explain his theory, which he hasent done, because
>> he cannot do it.
>
> LOL.  Why are you so emotional about a theory that you claim has not been presented?

Your imagination isn't evidence.

Why are you so dominated by your imagination ?  Can't think clearly ? Do 
people think you are f*cked up ?

>
>
>>> Your imagination isn't evidence.
>>
>> it is McGinns imagination.
>>
>>>
>>> You have to be much clearer on the distinction between what you
>>> believe and what you know.
>>
>>
>> which you are unable to do, McGinn Denk.
>
> You are the one making the fuss. Go ahead.  Show us your proof.

your spoof ?  You have to be much clearer on the distinction between 
what you believe and what you know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593377

On 8/16/2016 7:54 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/15/2016 11:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:24:07 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>>

>>>
>>> that is where McGinn is obviously wrong to anyone who knows science, and
>>> it brands him as a kook and a liar
>>
>> Uh, McGinn is right.  If I don't have reproducible evidence then all I
>> got is anecdote.  And anecdote is worthless.
>>
>
> Liar. all you have is troll poop and lies.
>
>>

>
>
> Liar.  You are just a dumb troll,  who dosent know any high school algebra.
>
>

>> LOL.  Why are you so emotional about a theory that you claim has not
>> been presented?
>
> Your imagination isn't evidence.
>
> Why are you so dominated by your imagination ?  Can't think clearly ? Do
> people think you are f*cked up ?


why are you so mean to Denk?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593756

On 8/16/2016 11:47 AM, Gamma wrote:
> On 8/16/2016 7:54 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 8/15/2016 11:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:24:07 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>
>>>> that is where McGinn is obviously wrong to anyone who knows science,
>>>> and
>>>> it brands him as a kook and a liar
>>>
>>> Uh, McGinn is right.  If I don't have reproducible evidence then all I
>>> got is anecdote.  And anecdote is worthless.
>>>
>>
>> Liar. all you have is troll poop and lies.
>>

>
>>
>>
>> Liar.  You are just a dumb troll,  who dosent know any high school
>> algebra.
>>
>>
>
>>> LOL.  Why are you so emotional about a theory that you claim has not
>>> been presented?
>>
>> Your imagination isn't evidence.
>>
>> Why are you so dominated by your imagination ?  Can't think clearly ? Do
>> people think you are f*cked up ?
>
>
> why are you so mean to Denk?
>

he loves the attention

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593492

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:10:53 PM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:24:07 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> 
> > >> Sure. You have yet to come up with a process that skips the gas
> > >> phase and creates drops.
> > >
> > > Frank, you are starting to sound just as dumb as Sergio.
> > >
> > > McGinn has always been adamant about the fact that the gas phase
> > > doesn't start until it acheives boiling,
> > 
> > that is where McGinn is obviously wrong to anyone who knows science, and 
> > it brands him as a kook and a liar
> 
> Uh, McGinn is right.  If you don't have reproducible evidence then all you got is anecdote.  And anecdote is worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> > > which is much higher than is
> > > available in the atmosphere.  You have to substantiate that there is
> > > a gas phase at ambient temps
> > 
> > no you do not.  McGinn has to prove it. McGinn is posting as Denk.
> 
> LOL.  You have to prove your own position also, dumbass.  
> 
> > > before you go asking McGinn to explain
> > > why he assumes there is not one.
> > 
> > wrong, McGinn has to explain his theory, which he hasent done, because 
> > he cannot do it.
> 
> LOL.  Why are you so emotional about a theory that you claim has not been presented?
> 
> 
> > > Your imagination isn't evidence.
> > 
> > it is McGinns imagination.
> > 
> > >
> > > You have to be much clearer on the distinction between what you
> > > believe and what you know.
> > 
> > 
> > which you are unable to do, McGinn Denk.
> 
> You are the one making the fuss. Go ahead.  Show us your proof.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593500

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:10:53 PM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:24:07 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> 
> > >> Sure. You have yet to come up with a process that skips the gas
> > >> phase and creates drops.
> > >
> > > Frank, you are starting to sound just as dumb as Sergio.
> > >
> > > McGinn has always been adamant about the fact that the gas phase
> > > doesn't start until it acheives boiling,
> > 
> > that is where McGinn is obviously wrong to anyone who knows science, and 
> > it brands him as a kook and a liar
> 
> Uh, McGinn is right.  If you don't have reproducible evidence then all you got is anecdote.  And anecdote is worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> > > which is much higher than is
> > > available in the atmosphere.  You have to substantiate that there is
> > > a gas phase at ambient temps
> > 
> > no you do not.  McGinn has to prove it. McGinn is posting as Denk.
> 
> LOL.  You have to prove your own position also, dumbass.  
> 
> > > before you go asking McGinn to explain
> > > why he assumes there is not one.
> > 
> > wrong, McGinn has to explain his theory, which he hasent done, because 
> > he cannot do it.
> 
> LOL.  Why are you so emotional about a theory that you claim has not been presented?
> 
> 
> > > Your imagination isn't evidence.
> > 
> > it is McGinns imagination.
> > 
> > >
> > > You have to be much clearer on the distinction between what you
> > > believe and what you know.
> > 
> > 
> > which you are unable to do, McGinn Denk.
> 
> You are the one making the fuss. Go ahead.  Show us your proof.

Dumb people just believe.  That is all they know how to do.

That is all they've ever known how to do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593775 — Re: Show us your Spoof

Denky shit you guys can skip this one.....


On 8/15/2016 11:10 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:

Claudius Denk is James McGinns smarter twin brother.



(Denk:)
>>>> Sure. I have yet to come up with a process that skips the gas
>>>> phase and creates drops.
>>>


>>> McGinn has always been adamant imagination about the fact that
>>> the gas phase doesn't start until it acheives boiling,

Denk:
>> that is where McGinn is obviously wrong to anyone who does not knows
>> science, and it brands them as a kook and a liar




McGinn:
> Uh, McGinn is white.  If I don't have reproducible evidence then all
> I got is anecdote and goats and goats and little lambs eat ivy..  And
> anecdote is worthless, cept on eBay.


Denk:
>>> which is much higher than is available in the atmosphere.  I
>>> have to substantiate that there is a gas phase at ambient temps
>>

McGinn:
>> no I do not.  McGinn has to prove it. McGinn is posting as Denk.
>


Denk:
> LOL.  I have to prove My own position also, dumbass.


McGinn:
>>> before you go asking McGinn to explain why he assumes there is
>>> not one.
>>
>> wrong, McGinn has to explain his theory, which he hasent done,
>> because he cannot do it.


Denk:
> LOL.  Why are I so emotional about a theory that I claim has not
> been presented?
>
>

McGinn:
>>> My imagination isn't evidence.
>>
>> it is McGinns, my imagination.
>>


Denk:
>>> You have to be much clearer on the distinction between what I
>>> believe and what I know.
>>

McGinn:
>> which you are unable to do, McGinn Denk.
>
> You are the one making the fuss. Go ahead.  Show us your spoof.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web