Re: Strange peer review editorial policy.

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Strange peer review editorial policy.
Date	2016-09-12 17:56 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<vq6jad-njp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <62cf8108-9557-4da3-bfae-9662f0f876fd@googlegroups.com> <nqvbe8$13j9$3@gioia.aioe.org> <nqvkdl$658$1@adenine.netfront.net> <nr4o26$noj$2@gioia.aioe.org> <57d65490$0$62241$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com>

Show all headers | View raw

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.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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