Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6% level
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Light is the unified form of the universe
Next: More problems for Cold Dark Matter theory, Milky Way doesn't fit model
From: eric gisse on 1 Jun 2010 20:17 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 1, 7:22 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > Who might this expert be, and what are his credentials? I somewhat >> > suspect the 'expert' is a guy with a web page who says something that >> > makes sense to you and nothing else. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > It was a thoughtful professional physicist writing a review of the > subject that was requested by the editor of the peer-reviewed physics > journal Contemporary Physics. > > Woof-on, Woofy If you don't like the attention, you should stop posting. Or at least act like an adult that isn't fucked in the head.
From: eric gisse on 1 Jun 2010 20:18 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: [...] > Dare to question dogma, > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw So Robert, what is your education in physics? My reference of NMR & Stern-Gerlach seems to have gone right over your head, so I suspect 'not a hell of a lot'.
From: Jerry on 1 Jun 2010 20:33 On Jun 1, 2:27 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jun 1, 7:22 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > Who might this expert be, and what are his credentials? I somewhat suspect > > > the 'expert' is a guy with a web page who says something that makes sense to > > > you and nothing else. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > It was a thoughtful professional physicist writing a review of the > subject that was requested by the editor of the peer-reviewed physics > journal Contemporary Physics. > > Woof-on, Woofy BZZZZT!!! Many physicists will say it has been empirically measured, but the expert in the field says that is FALSE. INCONSISTENCY!!!!!! You first called the person who made the statement "the expert in the field" and now you claim it was an anonymous peer reviewer??? Shall I conclude that you are blatantly lying??? Jerry
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 1 Jun 2010 23:35 On Jun 1, 8:33 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > You first called the person who made the statement "the expert in > the field" and now you claim it was an anonymous peer reviewer??? > Shall I conclude that you are blatantly lying??? ---------------------------------------------- You blithering idiot the review paper was written by the 2 authors, and then it was reviewed by the peer-reviewers, and finally it was accepted and published by the editor. That's what happens in real science. Perhaps you should look into the matter, but first take your head out of the dark hole it is stuck in. What a poser you are!
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 1 Jun 2010 23:38
On Jun 1, 7:26 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > An opinion is not an explanation. To all > appearances, you're simply obfuscating. -------------------------------- Obviously an unemployed English major posing as a "scientist". |