Re: Scientific Errors
- From: dennis_b@xxxxxxxxx (Dennis B)
- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:50:50 -0700
Re: Scientific Errors
Group: sci.physics Date: Mon, Jun 19, 2006, 6:25pm (PDT+8) From:
Usenet.es7AT@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (T Wake)
"Dennis B" <dennis_b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:29606-4496A291-1075@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If it weren't for the fact that you don't know how to spell (or properly
operate your computer),
This from some one posting via WebTV...
WebTV gets the job done doesn't it? Otherwise you wouldn't be
responding. And at least I can spell better than Phineas, who's a
hypocrite for saying that I don't know how to operate my computer (while
he submits empty posts like a hiccup).
I'd conclude you were a 'bot programmed to label everyone a kook, krank,
or krackpot. You have yet to properly conduct yourself as the scientist
you claim to be
You purport to be a scientist yourself yet you show no understanding of
the scientific method nor have you chosen to inform PTP of your
credentials / education or background.
What difference does my background make in the determination of the
validity of what I have to say. Either it makes sense or it doesn't.
Background isn't going to change that. If you are going to tell me I'm
wrong...you should point out the error. Otherwise you are guilty of
violating the scientific method in the absence of evidence to support
your claim.
You have shown your lack of scientific rigour, in that you base your
assessment of PTP's status by the replies _you_ have received on this
single thread. If you were to actually look at the newsgroup posts as a
whole you would see he has more than demonstrated an understanding of
the topic.
I don't need to look into his background or past postings to usenet in
order to know that he has violated the scientific method. He's arguing
with Newton. That strips him (and you) of any validity as a scientist.
As I have offered, I will review your work if you are prepared to pay
for my time.
You whore! You're thoughts on the matter aren't worth a single penny. I
know of a corner in the downtown area where you're likely to make a lot
more money selling your BS.
If you wish to get "peer review" via USENET, well, you will get what you
pay for.
To help, and for free, I will let you know that your science is lacking.
I have lot more to say on the subject of Bernoulli's principle (such as:
one must take into account inter-molecular forces as well as energy
density) so you'd be right to say that my science is lacking (as opposed
to wrong). Yet, to say I am wrong without explaining yourself is truly
"lacking" (evidence). I've provided the proof. Newton's equation. All
you have to do is disprove Newton's equation of >ma = >F.
I'm not sure what your "qualifications" or background would be (nor do I
care...I will judge you by what you have to say), yet I know that you're
a waste of my time and would be a waste of my money as well. This is a
science forum. If you're going to tell someone they're wrong in their
logic, you need to specify the error. To say "this is USENET" is no
excuse for such unscientific behavior.
Dennis B
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Scientific Errors
- From: T Wake
- Re: Scientific Errors
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: Scientific Errors
- From: Phineas T Puddleduck
- Re: Scientific Errors
- References:
- Re: Scientific Errors
- From: T Wake
- Re: Scientific Errors
- Prev by Date: Re: (mechanical) Gravity
- Next by Date: Re: Truth or Hoax?
- Previous by thread: Re: Scientific Errors
- Next by thread: Re: Scientific Errors
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
