On 5/23/20 1:59 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On 5/22/20 1:09 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On 5/21/20 7:35 PM, Dean Markley wrote:
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 1:33:20 PM UTC-4, Doctor Who wrote:
proving current physics is wrong as you know it.

it is really a pity crash for current physics.

Why do you persist in trolling?


if you are unable to advance physics, tell me what you do in your life,
just follow rules written in books like mules?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Jeff



don't expect extraordinary proof in usenet.

This is a false assertion.

The custom on Usenet, especially in the sci groups, is to provide cites.
Typically these are to articles in the media and/or technical papers.
This lends at least some credibility to the claims and allows the reader
to get more detailed information on the claim being made.

Since you don't want to provide those sorts of things (and in fact claim
you don't even trust technical journals so won't be submitting a paper
to them), then don't expect blind acceptance of your extraordinarily
claims in a sci group on Usenet.

That's how the sci gruops on Usenet have worked as long as I've been
around, which is back to about 1988. Back then, sci.space had not been
split into subgroups yet and it wasn't moderated. I'm feeling old
today.

Jeff


You can only expect a citation to the patent that will be filed some
months in the future, nothing else I think.

I don't know what calmagorod thinks about this, but I am not eager to
demonstrate anything on usenet.