What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The set of all SUBSETS that don't contain themself -> PARADISE
Next: Quantum Gravity 399.98: The Independence Operator, P(A-->B), and the Dependence Operator
From: NoEinstein on 6 Jul 2010 11:31 On Jul 6, 12:00 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: You've a visitor on my post. I don't go on wild-goose- chases. Like I've told you and others before, paraphrase what you wish to discuss so that the readers will know what is "in play". I'll give you credit for stating the name of... "something" that I've not seen before. I never need 'research' to explain my New Science. I can probably answer you question in about a paragraph. But you have to paraphrase your question, first; OK? NoEinstein > > On 7/5/10 9:12 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > On Jul 5, 10:25 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Sam: If you can paraphrase it, I will critique it. I didn't use > > anything status quo in formulating my New Science. NE > > >> On 7/5/10 8:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>> On Jul 2, 12:42 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 7/2/10 10:41 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>>>> Dear Readers: For a while now, I have been replying on sci.research > >>>>> because the subjects were of interest. Suddenly from out of nowhere, > >>>>> a "moderator" notifies me that I've got the physics wrong. > > >>>> This is no big surprise, as you get the physics wrong here too! > > >>> Give it up, Sam. You need to get into a learning mode to reply to > >>> be. I'm the MESSENGER. If you know so much, pick any point of my > >>> science, paraphrase your counter-argument, and let me explain how > >>> Nature really works! NE > > >> Enlighten me about Shapiro Delay, MESSENGER. > > Are you going to critique Shapiro Delay, MESSENGER? Or > enlighten me about it?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Jul 2010 13:41 On 7/6/10 10:31 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > Dear Sam: You've a visitor on my post. I don't go on wild-goose- > chases. Like I've told you and others before, paraphrase what you > wish to discuss so that the readers will know what is "in play". I'll > give you credit for stating the name of... "something" that I've not > seen before. I never need 'research' to explain my New Science. I > can probably answer you question in about a paragraph. But you have > to paraphrase your question, first; OK? � NoEinstein � I figured you were not well read on tests of general relativity. What areas of physics are you up on?
From: NoEinstein on 6 Jul 2010 19:48 On Jul 6, 1:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: Make a '+new post' stating anything that you suppose you are 'up' on in physics and see how many readers you get. I am "up" on the entire Universe; while you only defend the status quowhich is your God. NE > > On 7/6/10 10:31 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > Dear Sam: You've a visitor on my post. I don't go on wild-goose- > > chases. Like I've told you and others before, paraphrase what you > > wish to discuss so that the readers will know what is "in play". I'll > > give you credit for stating the name of... "something" that I've not > > seen before. I never need 'research' to explain my New Science. I > > can probably answer you question in about a paragraph. But you have > > to paraphrase your question, first; OK? NoEinstein > > I figured you were not well read on tests of general relativity. > > What areas of physics are you up on?
From: Sam Wormley on 7 Jul 2010 00:06 On 7/6/10 6:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > Dear Sam: Make a '+new post' stating anything that you suppose you > are 'up' on in physics and see how many readers you get. I am "up" on > the entire Universe; while you only defend the status quo�which is > your God. � NE � No matter what subject in physics I choose, you find some way not to address it. Game's up, you lose!
From: NoEinstein on 7 Jul 2010 12:26
On Jul 7, 12:06 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/6/10 6:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > Dear Sam: Make a '+new post' stating anything that you suppose you > > are 'up' on in physics and see how many readers you get. I am "up" on > > the entire Universe; while you only defend the status quo which is > > your God. NE > > No matter what subject in physics I choose, you find some way > not to address it. Game's up, you lose! Dear Sam: Getting me to go on a wild-goose-chase to read the works of others won't ever happen. You're supposed to be a 'smart' teacher (ha, ha, HA!). You should be able to paraphrase what you wish for me to comment on. Unless you can do that, then it is YOU who are not addressing things, and lose! NE |