Prev: * Hates US * admits his homosexuality while committing EPIC FAIL in futile attempt to support his LYING CLAIM about PNAC, which of course never said anything remotely suggesting it "wanted" the 9/11 attacks
Next: Proton Smaller Than Thought�May Rewrite Laws of Physics
From: eric gisse on 10 Jul 2010 08:24
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

> On Jul 10, 1:42 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Woofster, have you EVER published a scientific paper in a peer-
>> > reviewed scientific journal?
>>
>> Is this how you always handle situations whenever someone points out the
>> flaws in your model or your general inability to handle simple things?
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Eric, you have not given us a straight answer on this simple direct
> question.
>
> Please do so now, if you have any integrity

The answer is 'no', Robert. Just like the several times you have previously
asked that question.

So going back to what I originally asked, where is the DSR prediction of the
Hydrogen emission spectrum?

From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 12 Jul 2010 00:14
On Jul 11, 3:38 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I guess you don't read sci.physics or any of the other groups you wildly
> crosspost to, so I ask here again: Where is the DSR prediction of the
> Hydrogen emission spectrum?
---------------------------------

You idiot, you cannot "predict" something that is already known.

You are a non-scientific poser.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 12 Jul 2010 13:25
On Jul 12, 2:41 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You idiot, you cannot "predict" something that is already known.
>
> Why yes Robert, you can. Were you not taught the scientific method in grade
> school?
>
> A theory makes testable predictions based upon given inputs. As an example,
> for a given eccentricity and some other measurable parameters, general
> relativity predicts a given perihelion advance of a semi-Keplerian orbit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Again you demonstrate your naivete when it comes to science!

General Relativity predicted the advance in the perihelion of Mercury.

Note the PAST tense of the above statement.

Prediction literally means 'SAY BEFORE'. If something is known, then
a theory might have predicted it in the past, but a theory cannot
"predict" it after the fact of discovery. Obviously, a theory may
predict further examples of the phenomena, the results of
observational refinements, related phenomena, etc., as long as they
are NOT empirically known at the time the prediction is made.

These may seem like semantic trivialities to you, but preserving the
integrity of the Definitive Predictions/Empirical Testing part of
science is critical to healthy science.

Sigh,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 12 Jul 2010 13:31
On Jul 12, 2:41 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Right now I'm quite happy with my general policy of spending my commute
> times reading publications in addition to the time I spend at a library.
> If/when I find something I can extend or improve in a meaningful way, I'll
> try to get something published. But it isn't a personal priority for me.
--------------------------------

Idle boasting of a dilettante.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 12 Jul 2010 13:57
On Jul 12, 1:25 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu>
wrote:

CORRECTION!!!

GR retrodicted the advance in the perihelion of Mercury.

GR predicted the results of the eclipse experiment, time dilation in a
gravitational field, etc.

My Bad!
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: * Hates US * admits his homosexuality while committing EPIC FAIL in futile attempt to support his LYING CLAIM about PNAC, which of course never said anything remotely suggesting it "wanted" the 9/11 attacks
Next: Proton Smaller Than Thought�May Rewrite Laws of Physics