Re: Scientific Errors

In article <1150731219.244963.290720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Thomas Smid <thomas.smid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1150728517.903995.105890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

No - it means no. Your website is not a peer published article, and as
such I rate it much as I would rate any non-reviewed article

I can only assume you are not a scientist yourself, otherwise you
wouldn't need patronizing by other reviewers in order to make up you
mind about the value of a scientific article (having said this,
scientists frequently use actually the same argument if they don't want
to bother with views that do not agree with their own)

Thomas - actually I'm trying to be. I find that the rule I adhere to
(as above) does me fine. There is way too many people out there
claiming to have the fast track to knowledge, and it is all to easy to
lose your way.

The analogy I use is that should I find I need to navigate in a strange
town, I use a map/



Yes, I am afraid you are a little bit too late in case you intended to
submit it there (by the way, I submitted it myself already several
years ago; after all, any publicity is better than no publicity in
this case).

But not when you want to get further research.

What research? Most of the research opportunities I would be interested
in would have to be created first.
Anyway, I tried the other route before as well. It does actually not
matter where you publish your articles. Even if you manage to publish
a controversial article in a peer-reviewed journal, it is simply being
ignored if it is too controversial.
You have to generate publicity across the board if you want your views
to be discussed in the first place (let alone be accepted).

Thomas

I don't agree in the slightest. MOND and the like proves there is
plenty of outlets for non-mainstream science.

I don't mean to be harsh Thomas, but anyone whose website claims this,
that and the other is wrong is walking a thin line between cranks. I
saw your cv, saw your last job was website design.

I'm not being nasty, being harsh perhaps, bu not nasty. I hold quite a
few views that I would not consider mainstream.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my *** poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull*** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
.

Quantcast