Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,084 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 807,255
Pageviews Today: 1,045,449Threads Today: 175Posts Today: 3,443
08:26 AM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
Message Subject WARNING: SOLAR DATA PAGE COMPLETELY CENSORED,DATA ON OTHER SOURCES BEING FABRICATED!
Poster Handle Anonymous Coward
Post Content
To me the most important consideration and most interesting fact if all was that he did NOT answer a single question posed to him despite his many references in the manner I suggested using empirical proofs.
 Quoting: AnonPhysicist 1709374

I linked to entire experiments isolating the photon, and proving its existence -- experiments you can duplicate with the right equipment. I asked you questions specifically about validating what you claimed. I linked to all sorts of sources having exactly the information you claimed wasn't on the internet.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444

No sir, you did not. If the existence of the photon had been proven and it had been isolated, it would not be considered theoretical.
 Quoting: Anonymous Astrophysicist 1221979


Sigh. Didn't even *look* at the links I brought up. Here they are again, for your convenience.

In 1986, Grangier, Roger, and Aspect performed an elegant
experiment to isolate single photons. Conceptually very simple, their approach was to examine correlations between photodetections at the transmission and reflection outputs of a 50/50 beamsplitter. To quote the experimenters, ‘‘a single photon can only be detected once!’’ Hence, if a single quantum of light is incident on the beamsplitter, it should be detected at the transmission output or at the reflection output, but not both: there should be no coincident detections between the two outputs.

The experiment is proof of the existence of photons.

[link to people.whitman.edu]

Others have repeated and refined the experiments.

[link to people.whitman.edu]

Here's a nice slideshow that even *you* can understand.

[link to people.whitman.edu]

See also:

[link to www.tp.physique.usherbrooke.ca]

[link to www.nobeliefs.com]

[link to www.bourbaphy.fr]

[link to www-d0.fnal.gov]

[link to www.eng.yale.edu]

[link to scienceblogs.com]

[link to www.bourbaphy.fr]


You might have tremendous technical resources at you disposal,
 Quoting: Anonymous Astrophysicist 1221979


That's a laugh. I have several computers, an internet connection, and knowledge about how to actually DO research, and cite sources. What tremendous technical resources do I have that you don't?

but you have shit for brains. Too bad really.
 Quoting: Anonymous Astrophysicist 1221979


Ad Hominem noted. As usual, it's all you have.

Theory is not proof, no matter how many people appear to agree,
 Quoting: AnonPhysicist 1709374

Exactly. And you provide no *proof* of your electromagnetic theory of everything. You give *no way* to falsify it. You propose *no experiment* to validate it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444

There are and endless number of ways to disqualify my theory, but not if it's right. That's YOUR problem. You can't get past since my theory cannot be falisified that it is not falsifiable.
 Quoting: Anonymous Astrophysicist 1221979


Of course it can! That's the whole point of a scientific theory!

A scientific theory must:

- be empirically testable or lead to testable predictions or retrodictions (use present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs)
- make verified predictions and/or retrodictions
- lead to reproducible results so others can double-check
- include criteria for determine whether data is factual, artifactual, anomalous or irrelevant

A scientific theory must help us understand the nature of our data. Some data may be factual (verify the theory's predictions or retrodictions); some may be artifactual (result of secondary or accidental influences); some are anomalous (valid, but at odds with predictions or retrodictions); some are irreproducable and thus invalid; and some are irrelevant.

You not only create experiments that succeed if your idea is true, you also design experiments that will FAIL if your idea is true. But you haven't spelt out a way to test your theory at ALL.

Above is spelt out exactly the experiment used to isolate photons, step by step. Why can't you design something similar? What experiment do you propose, as the creator of the Electromagnetic Everything theory, that will fail if your idea is correct? Spell it out. If you CAN'T, it is NOT a scientific theory. A true scientist should be the loudest single critic of his or her own theory. Otherwise, it's just an idea. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?



You don;t even know what I said even means. If the theory is wrong the energy calculations won't add up, but THEY DO, with the electron's know mass.
 Quoting: Anonymous Astrophysicist 1221979


Excellent! Let's see some of those added-up calculations, step by step, line by line, truth table by truth table. If Archimedes can do it with floating bodies, surely you can with your hyper-intellect.


It isn't science. It's the IDW-religion. As is your belief in my being anything but an individual posting counter to you on the Internet.

Your idea (it isn't robust enough to be considered a theory) will remain such until you do the work of experimental prediction, verification and falsification.

The closest thing we have to an experiment validating your ideas is to see how your prediction goes this December, in which the internet will be broken, millions of people killed, including me, by the 21st. If your prediction, which you gave better than a 98.5% of occurring fails to occur, it casts doubt on all the rest of your ideas.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


As I have said before shitbreath, you are a disgrace and dishonor to yourself and any offspring that might have been unfortunate enough to spring forth from your loins.
 Quoting: Anonymous Astrophysicist 1221979


Ad Hominem noted. Oh, how you have wounded me.


There is nothing more dishonorable that a professional liar. You're a bit like a lawyer defending a guilty client who want's to murder humanity.
 Quoting: Anonymous Astrophysicist 1221979


Ad Hominem noted. You're a little like a kid who thinks he has super-powers staring hard at someone he doesn't like convinced their brains will explode at any moment now. And yet they don't.

See how pointless those kinds of lines are? Yet you use them so often and so fervently and so ineffectively.



There is no person more worthy of eternal suffering. Justice is coming to us all. ARE YOU READY?.
 Quoting: Anonymous Astrophysicist 1221979


Yes. But I am expecting justice will be in the form of you being utterly wrong on December 22nd, and the torrent of excuses you'll be using thereafter. You know that you'll be wrong, too, or you'd take me up on that wager you're too cowardly to accept.
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for reporting:



News