|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
what a tragedy for you
proving current physics is wrong as you know it.
it is really a pity crash for current physics. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
what a tragedy for you
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
what a tragedy for you
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
what a tragedy for you
On 5/24/20 8:57 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
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 just useless babblering. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |