Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #540923
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Future Advances in Physics... |
| References | (7 earlier) <9cfcd023-5fbd-4eab-a9f6-1e8036ddcd63@googlegroups.com> <GO2ey.12472$rj1.684@fx27.iad> <n5bkk3$jcd$1@speranza.aioe.org> <Zngey.41150$Hz3.6630@fx43.iad> <n5c53a$tlk$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| Message-ID | <zOkey.47621$by4.12005@fx14.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | TeraNews.com |
| Date | 2015-12-22 18:13 -0500 |
On 12/22/2015 01:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 12:12 PM, benj wrote:
>> The easiest way to judge the quality of work is to look at publications.
>> If there are many, it's average. If it's suppressed then it may be a
>> very important new idea that is too powerful to be allowed out.
>
> Ben, please. This is your paranoid delusion kicking in. There are TWO
> reasons why a subject might have a low number of publications. One is
> that it is terrible science that no one is able to replicate, like the
> result of Pons and Fleischman. The other possible reason is that it is
> novel but threatening somehow and it gets suppressed as being "too
> powerful to be allowed out". Now, which of these is MORE LIKELY to be
> the most common reason?
Odd please. Don't tell us again now governments don't lie, how
politicians all have the citizen's best interests at heart, how nothing
is ever classified, how ufos have not been covered up for years. yada
yada yada. Nobody buys that tripe anymore.
> Keep in mind that there have been lots of very powerful and very
> important new ideas that have generated LOTS of publications. That's a
> historical fact. So given that, why would only the "forbidden" ideas be
> the ones that are suppressed?
Not going to explain this to you. You are probably dishonest enough to
already know the answer.
> Again, I believe what's going on with you is that you are frustrated
> that ideas YOU are interested in are not getting many publications, and
> you can't seem to swallow the likelihood that you've been pursuing crap
> science. Because you view yourself as a GOOD scientist, and so the stuff
> you're interested in couldn't possibly be crap science, right?
You are really the pop psychologist, aren't you? You know all about me!
Sure. Why are you anonymous? Scared? Incompetent? Worried about your pop
psychology patients looking you up? Yawn. Nobody gives a crap about your
parrot lies (as someone here likes to say). There is more to life than
publications. The people who paid me were happy enough with the quality
of the work. And I'm CERTAIN they'd never hire you even to sweep the
floor (unless you are black).
Your idea of science is fantasy and dreamland. Turn off your TV, cancel
all your subscriptions, stop seeing movies and get a REAL education. The
best way to do that is to first, sign up to help with some candidate's
campaign and then run for office yourself. You will end up REALLY educated!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 12:17 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-19 13:22 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 03:27 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-21 00:57 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 14:00 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 14:21 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-21 17:12 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 21:44 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 07:53 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 13:12 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:34 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 18:13 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:14 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 14:03 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 16:16 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 22:24 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-12-27 14:03 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 16:48 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:38 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 18:20 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:16 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 14:09 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 21:20 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 07:38 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 13:03 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:23 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 17:56 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 17:46 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 20:11 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 05:14 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:21 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 00:48 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 11:13 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 07:44 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 13:05 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:28 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 18:03 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 10:14 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 10:32 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 22:00 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 21:57 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 11:12 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 21:19 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 13:03 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:12 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 22:22 -0800
csiph-web