Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniseb
This kind of ad hom attack is intolerable. I expect you to reword this post in a way consistent with the friendly nature of discourse around here. I also think you should consider the amount of time that Nereid has put into reading your posts, and thinking through responses as an amazingly friendly gesture that is giving you attention you can get nowhere else, and be respectful and thankful.
This is also an official warning. The next time you make this kind of statement, you will get some time off.
|
I accept that I should not be rude. I do appreciate Nereid's time. However I think he is due a more severe warning than me. I quote these items specifically:
Post
#272 harmonics theory thread.
Quote:
Yet the derived astronomical results (beyond the solar system) rtomes cites to support the ATM idea presented here do not come from primary sources (published papers), but wikipedia, an old copy of Nortons, and so on. Further, the methods used to estimate the key properties of stars and galaxies, used to support the ATM ideas (relative distances, in particular) are not (apparently) even investigated, much less factored in to HT analyses.
I am unfamiliar with this kind of sloppy work being called 'science', at least in the modern fields of astronomy and cosmology. Perhaps there are two, very different, views on what constitutes science? Perhaps we should spend the remaining few days in the life of this thread establishing common understanding of the basics of astronomy and cosmology, as sciences?
|
He has repeatedly totally disregarded the many references to peer review papers on the 155 day and related solar cycles. He ignores that many references to peer review papers on red shift periodicities. There is no reason to regard wikipedia as a bad source of data, it is often more up to date than many other sources.
post #258 (this thread)
Quote:
That there is a rather large gap between mainstream astronomy and cosmology, as sciences, and rtomes' ATM view of science is pretty clear in this post ... it would seem that, in this alternative science (pseudo-science?), when analysing observations an astronomer does not need to consider:
* how the objects observed were selected
* the consistency of those selections, between observations
* the extent to which the objects observed were complete (among all objects which meet the selection criteria)
* how blended objects should be treated
* the precision of the observations
* the reproducibility of the observations, across instruments, telescopes, etc
* data reduction techniques
* and so on.
|
There is no basis for the pseudo-science remark. Then he lists a whole set of inaccurate statements. I have answered many questions on these topics. I have never intentionally not answered a question. That is more that can be said for Nereid,
who consistently refuses to answer the question on the 155 day solar periodicities based on peer review articles. What he is doing is not science, it is an attempt to find weaknesses and have a dig at them. He badgered me repeatedly over how I classify quasars when I told him very clearly that I never need to classify quasars but use other people results. He refuses to look at the strengths of my case. He will not acknowledge or deny the facts regarding the 155 day cycle or the wave structures on Jupiter that confirm harmonics patterns. And he says that I am not scientific! His behaviour is far more serious than calling one comment drivel as he has attacked my character as a scientist.