It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by metalshredmetal
it just would have been a dis-honor to myself and the truth of torsion physics if i didn't give you some idea of what Rodin's studies are about.
Originally posted by metalshredmetal
. . . so, onward! keep posting about how marko rodin is a fool in a thread that is dedicated to his work . . .
The term is broader than God, it's religion. As already stated, there's no opposition to new religious ideas.
Originally posted by 23432
Since standard model is an incomplete beast , I don't really get this opposition to new ideas .
Oh it may have something to do with God .
Originally posted by 23432
Since standard model is an incomplete beast , I don't really get this opposition to new ideas .
Originally posted by angrysniper
reply to post by buddhasystem
Google Schwarzchild proton.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by angrysniper
reply to post by buddhasystem
Google Schwarzchild proton.
No, I won't. I've had enough of this nonsense right here on ATS in a separate thread. Read the "paper".
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The term is broader than God, it's religion. As already stated, there's no opposition to new religious ideas.
Originally posted by 23432
Since standard model is an incomplete beast , I don't really get this opposition to new ideas .
Oh it may have something to do with God .
The opposition is to calling new religious ideas science or mathematics when there's no science and no mathematics.
Originally posted by angrysniper
I have read the paper. What issues do you have with it?
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by 23432
Since standard model is an incomplete beast , I don't really get this opposition to new ideas .
Haramein has written a paper asserting that the proton is actually a black hole. This is wrong according to the vast body of experimental data that we have. Do you think opposing theories that are patently false is inappropriate?
Originally posted by 23432
Similarly , I don't treat current scientific understanding of humanity as end all & be all .
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by 23432
Similarly , I don't treat current scientific understanding of humanity as end all & be all .
Nobody in his right mind would assert that is "end and be all". Quite the opposite. However, within their limits of applicability, the current theories do match observation often with astonishing accuracy. Please ponder this.
Originally posted by 23432
However , It must be pointed out that Rodin is not strictly speaking conventional scientific lingo.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Flux thruster atom pulsar".
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Flux thruster atom pulsar".
You really don't know one way or the other, anything about it.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Flux thruster atom pulsar".
You really don't know one way or the other, anything about it. You've made it crystal clear on this thread you're not interested in it, and only have the goal of perverse entertainment for yourself and your cronies with various expressions of ridicule.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by 23432
However , It must be pointed out that Rodin is not strictly speaking conventional scientific lingo.
And therein lies a problem. When we try to ascertain how a theory relates to reality, we use measurements. For better or worse, this works for humanity. You predict a mass - measure it. You predict a voltage - measure it. Compare. You measured a voltage? Go back to you theory and try to see why it was such. That's how it works.
So if science lingo is not good enough for Rodin (actually it's inaccessible to him due to limited mental capacity), he should have invented his own, but one that is somehow tied into observables. But look what happens instead: Rodin does use the scientific lingo, but he hijacks mysterious sounding terms from real science and cooks alphabet soup from them.
Implosion of space-time? Black hole? No evidence of either.
"Flux thruster atom pulsar".
Erm, right...
edit on 27-1-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)
Well I'm interested in it! Please tell me all you know about it. And don't be shy with the technical specifications...if it looks promising maybe I can make one.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Flux thruster atom pulsar".
You really don't know one way or the other, anything about it. You've made it crystal clear on this thread you're not interested in it