why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

I'm calling this one a troll.

It's got all the hallmarks of a deliberate troll.

1. Willfully and deliberately ignorant of current physics.

2. He deliberately ignores attempts to draw him out into any kind of proof or qualifications.

3. He constantly baits with pseudo scientific terms.

4. He does not respond to challenges.

5. He punctuates his arguments with insults and caps in order to start further outrage.

It's a troll.

But how can he be a troll, he uses so many smilies?

Oh, wait. . .
 
OK...

1.

No.. I think you are a troll. Also, from what I can tell, you have not proven anything. If you have... where did you publish it? Or do you just intend to blather on here forever accomplishing nothing?

2.

It has been demonstrated several times in this thread that you don't know what you are talking about. However, you will continue to argue that you are right because if you don't.... you might not get all this nice attention.

3.

Sigh... first of all, you might want to learn to spell. Secondly you have not responded to any of the requests to show your actual knowledge of physics or qualifications despite numerous demands. I am sure you will have some blather about the inherent truth of your statements being the only qualification you need.... and indeed that would be acceptable if you had anything genuine to say. Again... why not publish? No one here thinks that you have any credibility.... so why stay if you are not a troll?

4.

And the incessant use of caps and big red letters? All the hallmark of the crank and/or troll.

5.

I'd be delighted to find out that cold fusion works.

Here's the caveat....

It has to work and so far... it doesn't.


Prove that it does instead of wasting everyone's time.... unless time wasting is what you intend.

In summary... you are a troll.
:)
In summary, is a troll somebody who exhibits scientific evidences and coherent arguments which prove that current theories are wrong ?
Yes?
Then ok, I'm a troll.
But it does not change the content of the evidences and arguments used by me.
 
:)
In summary, is a troll somebody who exhibits scientific evidences and coherent arguments which prove that current theories are wrong ?
Yes?
Then ok, I'm a troll.
But it does not change the content of the evidences and arguments used by me.

You're a troll for saying misleading things over and over again in an attempt to get people to respond to you, because thats what gives you jollies. It takes all sorts, one born every minute etc.
 
Originally Posted by RobDegraves View Post
3. He constantly baits with pseudo scientific terms.


Show me at least one
RobDegraves,
I realize that you purposely jumped over this my response in your reply.
Perhaps you dont know the difference between science and pseudoscience, so you are not able to point out any pseudo scientific term in my arguments.

But if you dont know the difference between science and pseudo science, than your claim that I'm a troll makes no sense.
:D
So, I challenge you to show me at least one pseudo scientific term used by me.

If you do not respond to my challange, I'll state that you're a troll
:)
 
I don't if he is a troll,but he is certainly not a teacher. I don't believe him.
You dont need to believe me, because I am not a priest.

You have only to analyse my arguments and the scientific facts exhibited by me.
 
:)
In summary, is a troll somebody who exhibits scientific evidences and coherent arguments which prove that current theories are wrong ?
Yes?
Then ok, I'm a troll.
But it does not change the content of the evidences and arguments used by me.

You have not provided any evidence,just ignorant rants in a variety of fonts and colours.
 
You dont need to believe me, because I am not a priest.

You have only to analyse my arguments and the scientific facts exhibited by me.

Look up the word facts in a dictionary,you appear to have the wrong definition. So you are not a teacher,is that what you mean?
 
RobDegraves,
I realize that you purposely jumped over this my response in your reply.
Perhaps you dont know the difference between science and pseudoscience, so you are not able to point out any pseudo scientific term in my arguments.

But if you dont know the difference between science and pseudo science, than your claim that I'm a troll makes no sense.
:D
So, I challenge you to show me at least one pseudo scientific term used by me.

If you do not respond to my challange, I'll state that you're a troll
:)

The problem is not the terms,it is the way you use them and the fact that real physicists have pointed out your errors,but you ignore them. Does it ever enter your head that you may be wrong about this?
 
If you do not respond to my challange, I'll state that you're a troll

No one cares what you state anymore. You have no credibility left.

Ergo...

My question to you is... why are you here?

What purpose could it possibly serve to come to a skeptic's forum and spout your fringe (to be kind) theory?

You are not publishing it.

You are not researching it.

You are accomplishing nothing except annoying the few people who were nice enough to actually try and respond intelligently to you.


Therefore... your sole purpose can only be trolling.

Quod erat demonstrandum.
 
No one cares what you state anymore. You have no credibility left.

Ergo...

My question to you is... why are you here?

What purpose could it possibly serve to come to a skeptic's forum and spout your fringe (to be kind) theory?

You are not publishing it.

You are not researching it.

You are accomplishing nothing except annoying the few people who were nice enough to actually try and respond intelligently to you.


Therefore... your sole purpose can only be trolling.

Quod erat demonstrandum.
Next troll please!
 
Next troll please!
:)
Next troll is Yukawa.
Soon we will analyse his stupid model of neutron, which violates the energy-mass conservation.

Actually Yukawa's neutron should be used to explain the Perpetual Motion machines, since his theory violates the energy-mass conservation
:D:D:
 
:)
Next troll is Yukawa.
Soon we will analyse his stupid model of neutron, which violates the energy-mass conservation.

Actually Yukawa's neutron should be used to explain the Perpetual Motion machines, since his theory violates the energy-mass conservation
:D:D:

There are no perpetual motion machines,Yukawa was a genius,you will talk crap about his model instead of analyzing it. Where did you study physics and what are your qualifications? Show me the math which proves that Yukawa's model violates energy=mass conservation. Betcha you can't.
 
I shudder at the idea of a prof who would fail a simple physics exam that was based solely on definitions alone...
 
:)
In summary, is a troll somebody who exhibits scientific evidences and coherent arguments which prove that current theories are wrong ?

That's not what you're doing. You may think you are, but considering how many crackpots with no real knowledge of science exist who THINK they have science by the balls, you'll excuse me if I remain unimpressed with your display of intellectual acumen so far.
 
That's not what you're doing. You may think you are, but considering how many crackpots with no real knowledge of science exist who THINK they have science by the balls, you'll excuse me if I remain unimpressed with your display of intellectual acumen so far.

Pedrone must realize that he is just the latest in a long line of posters who thought that they were smarter than Einstein,Dirac,Heisenberg,Bohr and Feynman all rolled into one. They all vanished back into obscurity and so far none has won a Nobel prize. Nothing new here.
 
Pedrone must realize that he is just the latest in a long line of posters who thought that they were smarter than Einstein,Dirac,Heisenberg,Bohr and Feynman all rolled into one. They all vanished back into obscurity and so far none has won a Nobel prize. Nothing new here.

I still wonder why Christophera hasn't got around to proving that the WTC towers had a concrete core...
 

Back
Top Bottom