A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

what a tragedy for you



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 21st 20, 06:33 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Doctor Who[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 59
Default what a tragedy for you

proving current physics is wrong as you know it.

it is really a pity crash for current physics.
Ads
  #2  
Old May 21st 20, 06:35 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Dean Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 476
Default what a tragedy for you

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?
  #3  
Old May 21st 20, 10:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Doctor Who[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 59
Default what a tragedy for you

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?


  #4  
Old May 22nd 20, 12:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Dean Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 476
Default what a tragedy for you

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 5:45:32 PM UTC-4, Doctor Who wrote:
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?


I am a chemist and I work in anticounterfeiting. I do what most sane scientists do, I follow known rules and if things change, I adapt. And things do change, new technologies are a dime a dozen. The difficult part of evaluating them is determining which are feasible (technically, physically and fiscally) and then applying them.

There's nothing wrong inherently with new technology. However there are people who make extraordinary claims without presenting proper evidence. I deal with them all the time. They are called "sales representatives" and their main goal is to sell. The vast majority of them are ethical folks making an honest living. But I have encountered ones who are less so. I've even had them get belligerent when I challenge their claims. In the end, if their product does not meet their claims or the endusers requirements, they don't sell and the "product" goes away.

You and "calma" seem to fall squarely in that last group. As others have said, it's time to "put up or shut up".
  #7  
Old May 23rd 20, 12:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,186
Default what a tragedy for you

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
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #8  
Old May 23rd 20, 03:19 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Doctor Who[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 59
Default what a tragedy for you

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.

  #9  
Old May 24th 20, 07:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,186
Default what a tragedy for you

In article , says...

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


Not terribly encouraging given past experience with people claiming to
have invented a reactionless drive.

Here is a NASA paper on the subject of reactionless drives that simply
don't work, at least some of which were patented.

Responding to Mechanical Antigravity
Marc G. Millis - Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Nicholas E. Thomas - University of Miami, Miami, Florida
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20070004897

I hope that the above will shed some light on wny I'm quite skeptical.

Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
 




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
The comic tragedy of rocketry [email protected] Policy 1 February 3rd 20 03:49 AM
EINSTEIN'S REVOLUTION: IRONY OR TRAGEDY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 August 21st 11 08:47 PM
Response to V Tech tragedy - Andy and John Amateur Astronomy 3 April 22nd 07 08:44 AM
AUSTRALIA ON THE VERGE OF A TRAGEDY Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times Astronomy Misc 3 January 30th 07 07:07 PM
Action Device Tragedy Abhi Astronomy Misc 24 January 24th 04 10:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.