|
|
|||||||
| Project Camelot General Discussion Reactions, feedback and suggestions on interviews, current events and experiences. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#11 | |
|
_
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Queanbeyan/Canberra; NSW, Australia
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
One can and many do 'cull scientific sounding gibberish' from other sites. This is not the case here and all 'formulations' can be checked for their validity. You are welcome to present SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM and ANALYSIS of anything you encountered on this website. The Thuban Science is NOT mainstream and so cannot be checked in peer review citatations. So if you choose to judge the Thuban omni-science as invalidated, because it is not mainstreamed or citated; then this is your prerogative. So you are invited to 'challenge' the Thuban science in its formalisms and postulates for appropriate reply. Your biased dismissal of things you are unfamiliar with is unwarranted in this instance. If you wish to DO SCIENCE, follow the SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. So for starters present your arguments and analysis about what and where the 'gibberish' is in the treatise. Hiding behind name calling will not do for the skeptical enquirer. Your question is answered in the post. If you cannot understand it; I suggest you consult some basic physics books or consult articles in populist scientific publications like New Scientist or Scientific American. The link http://cosmicdawn.net is an unconnected phishing site. AA Last edited by abraxasinas; 01-20-2010 at 05:27 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|