Quote:
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Happy Sunday Nereid,
The tone of your comments are always confrontational, Why?  |
I can assure you that the tone of my comments is not intended to be 'confrontational'*, but my comments are always, directly or indirectly, intended to be just what this section of BAUT is for ... the attacking of ATM ideas, 'with glee and fervour'. So, from now on, I shall make a point of explicitly noting when my comments are intended to be confrontational, and hope that you will not perceive any others as confrontational, OK?
Quote:
|
You can ask the same questions and get just as fast an answer, and in many cases even faster, if you discuss the matter with a friendly attitude. We're talking about my theory here. If you believe there are faults of concept somewhere, try to explain your point and I'll try to explain mine. If you believe I've made statements that you believe to be false, present your sources and I'll either present other sources or propose a rationale for the statement. If you believe that I have missed some question of yours, simply point it out and I will either identify where the question was already answered, or I will answer it. That's all. It can all be done in a pleasant manner for all concerned.
|
In the post of mine you are quoting, I repeated some questions I'd asked about your ATM idea earlier. May I ask if you have answered those questions? If so, where? If not, may I ask when you intend to answer them? I ask this because the rules of this ATM section are quite unambiguous wrt direct questions, and I certainly don't wish to ask a mod to step in for what seems to me to be a rule violation when it isn't.
Quote:
Where's the happy faces in you questions and replies For most, disagreement does not equate with anger in the scientific community.
respectfully, forrest
|
Here is another of my questions that I think has not been answered. If it has, would you please point to where you answered it? If not, may I ask when you expect to answer it? Thanks.
post#252 (relevant extracts only):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
I note that my third question here - has the underlying 'vortex theory of (pushing) gravity' been published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal? If so, please provide a reference - remains unanswered.
|
As to the second question. With ATM theories, no highly respected journals will touch them. Today the internet is the best bet since many practitioners know little more than what they were taught. Young practitioners might be willing to give it a crack but their job ofter depends on their constriction to dogma. My technical Paper has interested some online publishers so my expectation is that within a few months it will by published. I'm sure you realize that this theory is unrelated to present day perspectives and beliefs. That's neither good nor bad. It's just a fact. The fact that your reading my material means that not only you are critical of ATM ideas, it might mean that you have a skepticism of all assertions. BA says that he's a skeptic. Based upon some of his writings I would not be surprised if that skepticism did not extent beyond ATM ideas, which in my opinion is a laudable characteristic of all thinking people. |
So the answer to my question is "No".
Two follow-on Yes/No questions, just so that I don't (yet again) misunderstand ...
Has a paper containing the underlying 'vortex theory of (pushing) gravity' been submitted to a relevant, peer-reviewed journal?
Has a paper containing the underlying 'vortex theory of (pushing) gravity' been prepared, in a form that adheres to the style, format, layout, etc requirements of a relevant, peer-reviewed journal (e.g. ApJ's)?
respectfully, Nereid |
respectfully, Nereid
*
with one exception; in the post where I said I was having difficulty being respectful, after having spent hours on what turns out to be close to a wild goose chase.