QUOTE
Why do you dismiss *every* well-supported physical theory then?
Lad, there is a whole foundation of science that I totally accept, endorse and would bet my life on it being accurate
BUT
there is a whole lot of science that is like the tower of Babel
it is riddled with cracks and needs to be demolished to be rebuilt
I do find I like cracks.. for it is these that lead to new science.
You wish to paper over them... now what good does that do anyone.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why do you dismiss *every* well-supported physical theory then? |
Lad, there is a whole foundation of science that I totally accept, endorse and would bet my life on it being accurate
BUT
there is a whole lot of science that is like the tower of Babel
it is riddled with cracks and needs to be demolished to be rebuilt
I do find I like cracks.. for it is these that lead to new science.
You wish to paper over them... now what good does that do anyone.
If you try to keep to the scientific method, you will have a much harder time refuting these arguments.
It appears most posters here have no idea what the scientific method is.
IT IS NOT following the leader... oh yes there is evidence... there are many ways this evidence can be compounded into a theory... stuck on a theory ????
that is not the scientific method.... all is suspect until it provides accurate predictions or explains anomalies....simple things should be simply explained and even complex things are just compounded simple things.....
It seems that you think I go off into fairyland... LOL..... what I post is science. always based in science and in some cases "new science"... some of this I will not explain....
There are other things to do (with new science) than run into the streets naked shouting Eureka!
What really worries me on all the science forums that I have visited is the lack of deep science posters hold... all glib surface skimming..... rote science.. its in the book therefore it is true, period!!!! What is in the book does not count as evidence, some is evidence but most is opinion.
I am a qualified and well experienced scientist and I do not hold any reverence to written science.... yes I read, and take note.... all facts are logged, all theory is suspect... and above all it must gel (integrate) with the rest of the body of science.
Then I look for cracks... and I dig... the truth is out there, but you will never find it by listening..... only by active investigation are you going to discover anything "new" at all
the blinkered sheep have nothing to say.
Now to this subject... great example
I have done the math, I have written the theory, I have made predictions that have then been observed.... I have explained anomalies.... I have/had offered to do a primer thread.... criticism still flows...
Basically guys Y'ALL DO NOT UNDERSTAND SCIENCE... or the method
so don't come running to me saying what I post is not science.
I really do not care what your knowledge level is... but your methods are more suited to the middle ages.
N O M
21st May 2008 - 10:02 PM
QUOTE (Zerkoff+)
"... some of this I will not explain....
Purely because you can't. This is due to your wild claims having no basis whatsoever. Nothing but lies.
MjolnirPants
21st May 2008 - 11:01 PM
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 21 2008, 09:50 PM)
I do find I like cracks..
We know. Yer posts kinda clue us in.
And it's just crack. The plural is the same
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.