Damage Control! Damage Control!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: superdeterminism rather than Darwin evolution for science theory discoveries Chapt 2 #160; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Time shares the geometry of space's aether
From: eric gisse on 17 Jun 2010 23:01 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 17, 9:29 pm, eric pisser wrote: > > The usual ad hominem monkey dung Why Robert, there were no ad hominems there at all. You were unable to tell me by what objective criteria you are a scientist. You were unable to refute my claim that you have not demonstrated an understanding of anything past calculus. You were unable to refute my claim that you have no technical education in physics. I like how you didn't even bother defending my assertion that you couldn't hack a random undergrad problem. > ---------------------------- > > Would you care to identify anything about Discrete Scale Relativity > that conflicts with well-tested empirical knowledge? I'm quite satisfied with you being off by hundreds of significant figures WRT published mass values. > > Is there anything specific in the logic or reasoning that you object > to?
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 18 Jun 2010 11:38 On Jun 17, 11:01 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Would you care to identify anything about Discrete Scale > > Relativity that conflicts with well-tested empirical knowledge? ------------------------------------- > > I'm quite satisfied with you being off by hundreds of > significant figures WRT published mass values. -------------------------- Can you put your putative problem into specific scientific language? Exactly what mass values do you have problems with? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 18 Jun 2010 15:55 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 17, 11:01 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Would you care to identify anything about Discrete Scale >> > Relativity that conflicts with well-tested empirical knowledge? > ------------------------------------- >> >> I'm quite satisfied with you being off by hundreds of >> significant figures WRT published mass values. > -------------------------- You were unable to tell me by what objective criteria you are a scientist. You were unable to refute my claim that you have not demonstrated an understanding of anything past calculus. You were unable to refute my claim that you have no technical education in physics. I like how you didn't even bother defending my assertion that you couldn't hack a random undergrad problem. I also like how you've snipped the above w/o remark twice. Looks like I hit a nerve, and you'll snip it a 3rd time thus confirming what I wrote. > > Can you put your putative problem into specific scientific language? > Exactly what mass values do you have problems with? All of them? I see no reason to take the time to explain this to you again as I have already done it once before and pointed it out to you several times since. Every one of your mass values disagrees with observation by at least 50 standard deviations. So much for numerology. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 18 Jun 2010 18:37 On Jun 18, 3:55 pm, eric out-of-gas wrote: > woof, woof, woof,... ----------------------- Sigh, just as I thought. If Mr. Out-of-Gas was challenged to back up his closed-minded barking at Discrete Scale Relativity with some scientific arguments and data, then he would beat a hasty retreat. Probably a wise choice on his part. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 18 Jun 2010 19:20
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 18, 3:55 pm, eric out-of-gas wrote: > >> woof, woof, woof,... > ----------------------- > > Sigh, just as I thought. > > If Mr. Out-of-Gas was challenged to back up his closed-minded barking > at Discrete Scale Relativity with some scientific arguments and data, > then he would beat a hasty retreat. pdg.lbl.gov > > Probably a wise choice on his part. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |