Re: universe
- From: "JoeT" <jhwht@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Jul 2006 05:08:58 -0700
I have already posted most of the new aether science so far and really
disappointed by that none of you have offerred any scientific
discussion based on what you have learnt from physics of mechanics. How
can that all of you be like the reviewers of NSF, Physics review
Letters, etc., blindly rejecting the knowledge of physics of mechanics
as a whole in order to support no-aehter theories, which is apparently
a religious pseudo-science just like the geocentric cosmology. Can you
see that this time is different. Before, people against modern physics
did not offer a real scientific answer to replace it but now there is?
Do you know what are you doing? To protect your job by destroying real
science? Your children may become great scientists if they still have
chance. Do you want them to admire you or be shame of you?
JoeT
PD wrote:
JoeT wrote:
In my opinion,
Ah, good, let's consider it in detail, shall we?
Google (science) groups play or will play very important
function to democratize science
Much like subway cars democratize art. Oh wait, that's graffiti.
and to be a watch dog for government
agencies and scientific journals,
Normally one posts a watch dog in the same vicinity as that which you
want watched. But physics newsgroups and government agencies and
scientific journals have a nearly disjoint customer base --- there are
only a few physicists that read the newsgroups, and only a teeny
fraction of those that read the newsgroups read scientific journals or
do business with government agencies. That's a rather stupid strategy
for a watchdog posting.
which have long been corrupted to
support no-aether theories which are mathematical models
No, they are *physical* models that are *complete* with a
quantitatively predictive component. It is the predictive component
that makes them a working theory, and if they were *lacking* that it
would cease to be a theory.
like the
geocentric pseudo-science. I am now using them to inform the public
including scientific community that our physics and cosmology have been
wrong for centuries
Ah, so can you point to a time in the past, then, when our physics and
cosmology have been RIGHT in your view?
and to offer the real scientific answers to them.
And by "real" and "scientific" you mean WHAT, exactly? What are your
criteria for determining "real" and "scientific"?
Hopefully, physical science can be quickly saved by those form and
participating science groups apparently having doubts on current
pseudo-science.
That would be as likely, it appears, as attempting to score a bullseye
by aiming in the opposite direction and hoping for a ricochet. Could
happen, but it seems an awfully stupid approach.
The truth is that posting here is attractive because it is easy and
presents no barrier. Aiming in the *right* direction and doing the
proper work required to do that effectively is what's hard, and you
clearly don't want to do that work.
PD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: universe
- From: PD
- Re: universe
- References:
- universe
- From: JoeT
- Re: universe
- From: Igor
- Re: universe
- From: JoeT
- Re: universe
- From: PD
- Re: universe
- From: JoeT
- Re: universe
- From: PD
- universe
- Prev by Date: Re: Albert Einstein a Jewish anti-scientist
- Next by Date: Re: universe
- Previous by thread: Re: universe
- Next by thread: Re: universe
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
