| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"strings" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2005 09:47:50 PM |
| Object: |
agreement and knowledge |
i tend to be skeptical of new theories. however, i'm not quick to babble
about them on public newsgroups. i think you should the learn the theory
inside and out. and i don't mean via textbooks. i mean calculations.
original research. etc. then you can babble all you want.
you need some foundation. this is what Mr. Hammond is lacking.
michael
.
|
|
| User: "Order of the Solar Temple" |
|
| Title: Re: agreement and knowledge |
14 Oct 2005 12:10:06 AM |
|
|
"strings" <strings@example.net> wrote in message
news:434f1c58$0$99942$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
i tend to be skeptical of new theories.
No one care what you think, stringy. You already DA .
(DA = Dumb *****)
however, i'm not quick to babble about them on public newsgroups.
That is all you do is- babble, incoherent babble at that, string-boy.
i think you should the learn the theory inside and out.
Most of us already know it, inside and out, you do not, you stuck in 3rd
grade, stringy-snot swiper.
and i don't mean via textbooks. i mean calculations.
u using yer calculator wibth yer textis buook? Bet u dont habb any
Mathematics in it, stringy hillbilly-boy
original research.
peer review publications? or comic books,
ssttrriinngggggiiiiiiiieeeeeee.........
.
|
|
|
| User: "strings" |
|
| Title: Re: agreement and knowledge |
14 Oct 2005 04:47:06 AM |
|
|
"Order of the Solar Temple" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:434f3da7$0$60541$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"strings" <strings@example.net> wrote in message
news:434f1c58$0$99942$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
i tend to be skeptical of new theories.
No one care what you think, stringy. You already DA .
(DA = Dumb *****)
at least my fake addy is RFC compliant. go google RFCs and get back with
me.
strings
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: agreement and knowledge |
14 Oct 2005 08:26:39 AM |
|
|
strings wrote:
i tend to be skeptical of new theories. however, i'm
not quick to babble about them on public newsgroups.
Seems like this is a continuation of some discussion
of which I'm unaware, but ..
i think you should the learn the theory inside and out.
and i don't mean via textbooks. i mean calculations.
original research. etc. then you can babble all you
want.
I agree one should learn as much possible of "established"
physics, and its general principles, before proposing new
ideas.
It's the ultimate conceit to believe one can reinvent it
from a state of ignorance, as some crackpots claim to do,
because that implicitly assumes one is "better" than all
past physicists combined (even if a superficial knowledge
of some phenomena only observed and known about in recent
years may give one an infinitesimal advantage over them).
But that said, isn't there are danger that in immersing
oneself too deeply in details of the latest speculative
theories you may end up being unable to see the wood for
the trees?
you need some foundation. this is what Mr. Hammond
is lacking.
Ah right, George Hammond. Yes, that's one of the things
he's lacking..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: agreement and knowledge |
14 Oct 2005 11:12:51 AM |
|
|
wrote:
want.
I agree one should learn as much possible of "established"
physics, and its general principles, before proposing new
ideas.
Either before or while doing new physics. Einstein was well versed in
classical physics, even while he was working on his new stuff. In fact,
it was because he was well versed in classical physics that he
understood there was an asymmetry in the theory not inherent in the
phenomena (read the first two pages of -On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies-).
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
