DQW

Didn't know they made woollen blankets with breezes !

 

Reyveta, did you notice that your electron is also shaped like a pufferfish ?

http://employees.csbsju.edu/hjakubowski/classes/ch331/signaltrans/pufferfish.jpg

An old Martin Gardner article was stunningly bad that way, and he was the math guru of the 1950s.

Now that's nothing but an unsubstantiated claim, and further, it's possibly no more than just your personal opinion. While I'm not arguing the truth of it, such statements mean absolutely nothing to me, if you don't provide an actual reference.

 

It's ironic that you make such a statement in the very thread that urges members to back up claims with evidence.

(A collection of some thoughts brought on by recent posts and posters. Some of these are touched upon in the FAQ and Pseudoscience section' date=' and these sentiments can be found on other science fora)

 

If you think you've toppled relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution or some other theory with your post, think again. Theories that have been around for a while have lots of evidence to back them up. It is far more likely that you have missed something.

 

Here are some things to consider:

 

1. You have to back your statements up with evidence.

...

4. Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum.

...

6. When you have been shown to be wrong, acknowledge it.

7. Just because some paper or web site agrees with you does not mean that you are right. You need evidence.

...

9. Provide references when you refer to the work of others. Make sure the work is relevant, and quotes are in the proper context.

10. Disagreeing with you does not make someone "close-minded." "Thinking outside the box" is not a substitute for verifiable experimental data.

11. Mainstream science is mainstream because it works, not because of some conspiracy. If you think you have an alternative, you have to cover all the bases - not just one experiment (real or gedanken). One set of experimental results that nobody has been able to reproduce is insufficient.

...

13. Be familiar with that which you are criticizing. Don't make up your own terminology, and know the language of the science. A theory is not a guess.

...

18. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to address criticism of your viewpoint.[/quote']Swansont, what is the policy regarding a speculative thread that does not adhere to the above "requirements" ?