Is there a place for woo in science?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Magical Realist, Aug 17, 2014.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    So we can put you in the "more woo in science" camp, I guess.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    17,307


    just start with a couple . then we will go from there

    no diversion at all , its just that Joseph Farrell's books are what I have been reading recently so I'm more familiar with his thoughts

    and his books hits on Browns theories

    so lets talk about Browns theories
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Which part of "Unless you have specific points" did you not understand?

    Which part of "entirely the wrong thread" did you not understand?

    (And we've been through [much of] Brown's theories as "explained" by Farrell [sup]1[/sup], you failed to make your case there too).

    1 Yet another thread/ discussion where I showed that I was more familiar with the subject matter than you.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    what I'm asking is what YOU found fault with Browns theory
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    nice diversion

    what I asked is what parts of Josephs book did YOU disagree with
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Is it memory loss or selective memory on your part?
    Again:
    1) This the wrong thread for this discussion.
    2) You've now changed tack; originally you wanted to talk about what issues I have with Farrell, and now you're asking where I find fault with Brown.
    3) You appear to be completely ignoring, despite the reminder, the fact we've already been through (or at least extensively discussed) Brown's "theory" in a different thread.
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    but you have read , in Josephs books about Brown's theories right ...?

    so lets discuss Brown's theory as described in Joseph's book , you have read it right ?

    ( by the way , stop going behind my back in answering this thread or any other , inotherwords , inorder to make sure you have not or have replied to this or any other thread , I make sure that whether this thread is discussed , openly .
    I'm tried of finding when I go to the general topic that you have answered , stop the back door answers )
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    then talk about anything you find fault with Farrell's theories
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    FFS!
    1) This the wrong thread for this discussion.
    2) You've now changed tack; originally you wanted to talk about what issues I have with Farrell, and now you're asking where I find fault with Brown.
    3) You appear to be completely ignoring, despite the reminder, the fact we've already been through (or at least extensively discussed) Brown's "theory" in a different thread.

    What the f*ck are you talking about?
    How am I "going behind your back" by replying to your posts?

    I'll try again.
    THIS IS THE WRONG THREAD.
    Start another - specific - thread, don't derail this one.
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    simple

    I always look to see who is presently online , and you are never there

    get it , your sneaky
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    And that's "going behind your back"?
    F*ckwit.
    I'm either logged out, and doing something else, or I'm here and, wait for it... I selected "Not visible" when logged in - it's been my default for over 4 years [sup]1[/sup].

    1 And, due to not having a TV and not having seen any of the programmes (in fact I've never heard of one of the characters) referenced in the questions I can't change my options.
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    17,307


    Yeah the not " not visable " is sneaky , now I know how people respond , without seemingly being there , yet have responded to a thread

    I will never use it , it is a dishonest tool , and annoying

    Yeah , you are constantly " logged out " , yet you respond to the thread on which we were discussing , then your gone

    This is constantly happening , over and over again , either your on or off , and don't give stupid excuses , either your online or not
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    And it's dishonest because...
    You want to respond while I'm not around, in the hopes that you can slip something past me perhaps?

    Ah right.
    You think your inanities should take up all of my attention?

    You, and they, occupy far less of my time (and attention) than you seem to think they warrant.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Dywyddyr

    Its best that you no longer have any posts here
     
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Yeah?
    Why is that?
    Because I point out your errors?
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    No

    Because your mindset , is absolute
     
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    And there you are with assumptions again.
    Please stop it.
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Stopped

    But ...
     
  22. Waiter_2001 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Well it's all very well using the tool of invisibility as Bilbo did, but then you will have to experience the REASON for your invisibility TWICE!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Where is the reason in that?

    Why not use the tool of time as WAITER does?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What in the end is this " woo " science really ?

    Is it based on Maxwells' equations that are missing in Einsteins thinking , the scalar part of Maxwells' equations , which when the the sum of of the vector equals 0 , the scalar is left ...?

    Sure its easier to leave out the scalar part , but why ?

    All of the parts of the equation are about the atomic shell , but the scalar Includes the dynamics of the nucleus of the atom

    Is this scalar part of the equation considered " woo " science ...?
     

Share This Page