Re: New improved facts part 3v031
- From: "PD" <pdraper@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Apr 2005 05:25:58 -0700
Dr *** wrote:
> "PD" <pdraper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1113071164.994329.121370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Dr *** wrote:
> > Of accelerate, deceleration, motion and energy.
> >
> > ************** Simplified *************
>
> Wow, this IS improved. The density of errors has gone WAY up. Too
high,
> in fact, for me to start tackling it.
> PD
>
> I thought you might be pleased :-) I have more just wait.
> It is a pity that you were unable to provide any proof of any of my
errors
> so far I suppose in the end you will start to claim that I have not
taken
> any note of your illogical assertion and you will be correct for the
first
> time :-).
>
> Dr ***
Ah, see, and here is where you make a common error about physics. You
assume that your role is to propose something and that the critic's
responsibility is to prove you wrong. Unfortunately, this is not how
science works. The critic might take it upon himself/herself to point
out places where you are likely wrong, but the burden of proof is on
nature itself. Your responsibility here is to suggest the experimental
test that would quantitatively and qualitatively distinguish your
theory's predictions from the current model's predictions. The comments
we make are as a courtesy, but we have no onus to "defend" the current
model from newcomers with a different idea.
PD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: New improved facts part 3v031
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: New improved facts part 3v031
- From: Dr ***
- Re: New improved facts part 3v031
- References:
- New improved facts part 3v031
- From: Dr ***
- Re: New improved facts part 3v031
- From: PD
- Re: New improved facts part 3v031
- From: Dr ***
- New improved facts part 3v031
- Prev by Date: Re: Why
- Next by Date: Re: New improved facts part 2v031
- Previous by thread: Re: New improved facts part 3v031
- Next by thread: Re: New improved facts part 3v031
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|