Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

GR  and  QFT  , so well-hammered out in view of "some" people , are , in point of fact , clashing badly against one another. Any physicist can see that. Regurgitating nonsense without evidence is also part of modern-day physics. It is Mr Wizard Peer-review that makes it not seem nonsense. CERN guys are synthetically producing particles and sub-sub-particles  , smashing previous particles into each other somewhere near the speed of light  !!  simply to read out their own version of particle physics. Only a blind one cannot possibly see how synthetic ( and overly theorized/mathematized) the whole business goes there in Switzerland/France. 

I'd be a lot happier, if you stopped talking bollox...

Bias is important in seeing one's blind spot...

Posted
1 hour ago, Axion said:

 

how large is large I provided in the CBD thread think enough studies that supports the fact that CBD is T-Cell booster, and still You moved the thread in the Specul subforum!?

I, in fact, did not move the thread, though I have no disagreement with that action. People with biology expertise explained the shortcoming of your claim

Your original assertion implied CBD was a viable alternative to the COVID mRNA vaccine, and it’s laughable to suggest that’s not speculation.

Further, your critical analysis skills are suspect, considering you can’t sort out the “lack of scientific evidence” from the “conspiracy” issues. (the latter are things like your assertions involving “big pharma”)

 

Posted
Just now, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

So apply it , Please . . . . .

It was a reaction to your's; the punch line, if you will... 🙄

Posted
1 hour ago, Axion said:

@Phi for All hm, merit to what, I didnt ridiculed noone, nor I posted gibberish theory in case of CBD or suggested fake thesis in case of magnetic monopoles, point me what rule I've broke ...

 

rule 2.5, every time you bring up unrelated material

Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument.

rule 2.7 (this is only an excerpt), every time you posted a link to a discussion board as evidence

Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos.

rule 2.12, every time you refer to the dogma of science, or conspiracies like “big pharma” controlling things

We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.

 

33 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

GR  and  QFT  , so well-hammered out in view of "some" people , are , in point of fact , clashing badly against one another. Any physicist can see that. Regurgitating nonsense without evidence is also part of modern-day physics. It is Mr Wizard Peer-review that makes it not seem nonsense. CERN guys are synthetically producing particles and sub-sub-particles  , smashing previous particles into each other somewhere near the speed of light  !!  simply to read out their own version of particle physics. Only a blind one cannot possibly see how synthetic ( and overly theorized/mathematized) the whole business goes there in Switzerland/France. 

Please note that this is also in violation of rule 2.12

1 hour ago, iNow said:

This thread has obviously become just another venue for Axion to spam their unsupported ideas and needs to be split / merged with the 12 other existing threads on this topic / just trashed along with his posting permissions /2cents

Yes, and we will deal with it once events have played out

Posted
1 hour ago, Axion said:

yeah I am choked by the mainstream exceptional smell, so rather place where I would escape from mainstream lobotomizing!

I will recommend to staff you get your wish, but not here. We won't EVER be a site for wild guesswork.

I  don't understand why you don't post at a site that welcomes such conclusion-jumping. There are plenty of them, yet you complain that we need to be like them. We don't want that, so why do you insist on posting here?

Posted
3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I will recommend to staff you get your wish, but not here. We won't EVER be a site for wild guesswork.

Please dont do it because me, but because Physics as science if You want to say skepticism is most welcome leverage for progress, especially now when the standard model is in question [1][1] and eloquently eg. electric universe theory could be accepted as alternative [2][2] instead bogus one!

Posted

As Phi implied, there are places you can discuss such unsupported claims. This is not one of them.

You are “choked by the mainstream” because you aren’t discussing mainstream science.

Posted
5 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

GR  and  QFT  , so well-hammered out in view of "some" people , are , in point of fact , clashing badly against one another.

The reasons why they clash are well known.
Start another thread if you want those reasons explained to you.

In this thread those reasons are off-topic..
Or, as Dim says, 'bollox'.

Posted
11 minutes ago, swansont said:

As Phi implied, there are places you can discuss such unsupported claims. This is not one of them.

You are “choked by the mainstream” because you aren’t discussing mainstream science.

no, I am choked exactly by conspiracies, so only way to debunk them is to approach to skepticism by debate [1] but when I offered my skepticism [1][1] it was not debunked by arguments with ontopic points but exceptionalism!

Posted
20 minutes ago, Axion said:

no, I am choked exactly by conspiracies, so only way to debunk them is to approach to skepticism by debate [1] but when I offered my skepticism [1][1] it was not debunked by arguments with ontopic points but exceptionalism!

You offered waving hands, or pushed long debunked theories like EU without showing new support. Your skepticism is worth nothing. Evidence is the key here.

Posted
49 minutes ago, Axion said:

no, I am choked exactly by conspiracies, so only way to debunk them is to approach to skepticism by debate [1] but when I offered my skepticism [1][1] it was not debunked by arguments with ontopic points but exceptionalism!

You have this backwards.The burden of proof lies with you. Your “skepticism” doesn’t need to be debunked. Nobody is required to prove science isn’t a conspiracy.

6 minutes ago, Axion said:

are You aware that without the standard model electric universe is more than plausible, even other theories!? simply holding to the spm its not anymore viable like this, and that is no evidence in big amount on SF forum where people were debating on behalf SPM or through it against every other theory! 

This BS. The standard model is known to be incomplete. It has not been discarded, and that you do not distinguish between these very different situations is a large problem.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Axion said:

are You aware that without the standard model electric universe is more than plausible, even other theories!? simply holding to the spm its not anymore viable like this, and that is no evidence in big amount on SF forum where people were debating on behalf SPM or through it against every other theory!

No, because it's not. We have threads on EU if you check back. IIRC, studying comets shows EU to be false. All your ideas seem based on NOT using a model that's been extremely helpful in favor of just another non-mathematical aether fable.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.