(Michael Moroney) wrote:

writes:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(snip)

[against my better judgement] You say "there is not enough time" but
you don't have any theory or calculation to support that statement.

Just for once, instead of pontificating, why don't you explain how you
come to that conclusion. And I don't mean "I guess..." or "it seems
likely that..." - I'd like to see a proper explanation of the claim.

Before you argue with Archie, realize that he doesn't comprehend how
science or the scientific method work at all. He has no concept about
how the scientific process of hypothesis, testing and verification cycle
work. For him an idea starts out with "I guess" or "perhaps" or "it seems
likely", then later on what was "likely" in his mind a day or two ago
becomes a firmly established fact to him. In fact, his posts follow
a regular cycle. He will ask an interesting and somewhat wild question,
such as what would happen to the sun if a planet crashed into it, debate
those who answer him, ignore their actual answers while presenting his
own ideas, debate those who disagree with him while his earlier ideas
become firmly established facts in his mind, then try to belittle those
who disagree with his "facts" as 'unscientific' and 'childish' while, of
course, he's being totally unscientific.

Now that you know this, either read his posts for their entertainment
value or ignore/killfile them. Just realize that debating them is a
dead-end path.

Thanks - I was coming to that conclusion myself

He may be mildly entertaining for a short while, but I've got lots
more useful things I could be doing than trying to debate nonsense
with him, so I think the killfile option might be the best for now.

Cheers,

DP


--
David_Paterson = ¦ ;

Senior programmer There are three kinds of people in the world -
Visual Science Ltd. those who can count, and those who can't...