A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I don't understand why you frequent this newsgroup



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 25th 20, 03:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Doctor Who[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default I don't understand why you frequent this newsgroup

You are not physicians , nor mathematicians, nor engineers.

You just like to fight who is against your ideas.
  #2  
Old February 25th 20, 06:58 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Dean Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 515
Default I don't understand why you frequent this newsgroup

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 8:59:52 AM UTC-5, Doctor Who wrote:
You are not physicians , nor mathematicians, nor engineers.

You just like to fight who is against your ideas.


I'm not sure who you are talking to. You seem to be making replies as new topics.

But I for one, am a professional chemical engineer so your statement above is wrong right from the beginning.
  #3  
Old February 25th 20, 07:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Doctor Who[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default I don't understand why you frequent this newsgroup

On 2/25/20 6:58 PM, Dean Markley wrote:
On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 8:59:52 AM UTC-5, Doctor Who wrote:
You are not physicians , nor mathematicians, nor engineers.

You just like to fight who is against your ideas.


I'm not sure who you are talking to. You seem to be making replies as new topics.

But I for one, am a professional chemical engineer so your statement above is wrong right from the beginning.



you are not Sylvia.

  #4  
Old February 25th 20, 07:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Doctor Who[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default I don't understand why you frequent this newsgroup

On 2/25/20 6:58 PM, Dean Markley wrote:
On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 8:59:52 AM UTC-5, Doctor Who wrote:
You are not physicians , nor mathematicians, nor engineers.

You just like to fight who is against your ideas.


I'm not sure who you are talking to. You seem to be making replies as new topics.

But I for one, am a professional chemical engineer so your statement above is wrong right from the beginning.


prove it.

  #5  
Old February 25th 20, 08:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Dean Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 515
Default I don't understand why you frequent this newsgroup

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 1:30:22 PM UTC-5, Doctor Who wrote:
On 2/25/20 6:58 PM, Dean Markley wrote:
On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 8:59:52 AM UTC-5, Doctor Who wrote:
You are not physicians , nor mathematicians, nor engineers.

You just like to fight who is against your ideas.


I'm not sure who you are talking to. You seem to be making replies as new topics.

But I for one, am a professional chemical engineer so your statement above is wrong right from the beginning.


prove it.


Troll
  #6  
Old February 25th 20, 09:46 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Doctor Who[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default I don't understand why you frequent this newsgroup

On 2/25/20 8:59 PM, Dean Markley wrote:
On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 1:30:22 PM UTC-5, Doctor Who wrote:
On 2/25/20 6:58 PM, Dean Markley wrote:
On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 8:59:52 AM UTC-5, Doctor Who wrote:
You are not physicians , nor mathematicians, nor engineers.

You just like to fight who is against your ideas.

I'm not sure who you are talking to. You seem to be making replies as new topics.

But I for one, am a professional chemical engineer so your statement above is wrong right from the beginning.


prove it.


Troll



Oh my god I am all suffering for that !

  #7  
Old February 26th 20, 02:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default I don't understand why you frequent this newsgroup

Nor do I. PNN has nothing to do with space or space policy.

I suggest you try sci.physics.

If you want a fair hearing from knowledgeable people I suggest you
submit your papers to a peer-reviewed physics journal.

Barring that, an established professor at a university or maybe one of
your own college instructors, who might sponsor your paper to the peer
reviewed journal. This is the way science and engineering is done.

Hopefully I'll read about your breakthrough in a journal. Until then.

*plonk*
  #8  
Old February 26th 20, 04:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Doctor Who[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default I don't understand why you frequent this newsgroup

On 2/26/20 2:16 PM, David Spain wrote:

If you want a fair hearing from knowledgeable people I suggest you
submit your papers to a peer-reviewed physics journal.



ah, the classical bankruptcy procedure.
  #9  
Old February 26th 20, 11:55 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default I don't understand why you frequent this newsgroup

Il giorno mercoledì 26 febbraio 2020 14:16:39 UTC+1, David Spain ha scritto:
Nor do I. PNN has nothing to do with space or space policy.

I suggest you try sci.physics.

If you want a fair hearing from knowledgeable people I suggest you
submit your papers to a peer-reviewed physics journal.

Barring that, an established professor at a university or maybe one of
your own college instructors, who might sponsor your paper to the peer
reviewed journal. This is the way science and engineering is done.

Hopefully I'll read about your breakthrough in a journal. Until then.

*plonk*


Mr. Spain

It is comical that you say to Doctor Who that the pnn has nothing to do with space when it has been 50 years since missiles have even managed to put a permanent base on the moon. A propulsion system that loses more than 99% of the mass to get to and from the moon is at least a comic propulsion system.
However, I don't mind publishing the developments of the PNN in a peer reviewed journal that will subject to censorship or to time delays, since we at ASPS have had called Nova Astronautica where our research has been published since 1981 www.asps.it/ novafiorenza.htm even without the consent of the clever and useless trumpet astronautics.
Now a patent of the new pnn will be filed and experimental demonstrations of the know-how of the F432 pnn will be given to a certain public. The demonstrations will also be in our urls. So the situation will evolve in this way. Someone curious will start to reproduce what will be said of a pnn that is not that of 1998.
Those who will not do it or will delay because of imbecility to verify what the ASPS will say, will be astronautically dead. Rockets will become museum stuff and those who don't change their mental paradigm will self-destruct.. But everything will happen without warning because in war, surprise is a great advantage.

E.Laureti
  #10  
Old February 26th 20, 11:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default I don't understand why you frequent this newsgroup

Il giorno mercoledì 26 febbraio 2020 23:55:24 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno mercoledì 26 febbraio 2020 14:16:39 UTC+1, David Spain ha scritto:
Nor do I. PNN has nothing to do with space or space policy.

I suggest you try sci.physics.

If you want a fair hearing from knowledgeable people I suggest you
submit your papers to a peer-reviewed physics journal.

Barring that, an established professor at a university or maybe one of
your own college instructors, who might sponsor your paper to the peer
reviewed journal. This is the way science and engineering is done.

Hopefully I'll read about your breakthrough in a journal. Until then.

*plonk*


Mr. Spain

It is comical that you say to Doctor Who that the pnn has nothing to do with space when it has been 50 years since missiles have even managed to put a permanent base on the moon. A propulsion system that loses more than 99% of the mass to get to and from the moon is at least a comic propulsion system.
However, I don't mind publishing the developments of the PNN in a peer reviewed journal that will subject to censorship or to time delays, since we at ASPS have had called Nova Astronautica where our research has been published since 1981



www.asps.it/novafiorenza.htm


even without the consent of the clever and useless trumpet astronautics.
Now a patent of the new pnn will be filed and experimental demonstrations of the know-how of the F432 pnn will be given to a certain public. The demonstrations will also be in our urls. So the situation will evolve in this way. Someone curious will start to reproduce what will be said of a pnn that is not that of 1998.
Those who will not do it or will delay because of imbecility to verify what the ASPS will say, will be astronautically dead. Rockets will become museum stuff and those who don't change their mental paradigm will self-destruct. But everything will happen without warning because in war, surprise is a great advantage.

E.Laureti


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
where Jimmy's frequent democrat spoils, Candy puts instead of teenage, conservative oceans [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 August 14th 07 08:51 AM
Frequent moon impacts Martin 53N 1W SETI 37 September 17th 06 01:41 AM
Help me understand ZRexRider SETI 12 March 15th 05 03:47 AM
How frequent do you o JOHN PAZMINO Amateur Astronomy 0 December 22nd 03 03:35 AM
How frequent do you observe in your own backyard [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 33 December 12th 03 03:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.