18-February-2006, 03:52 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,810
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chineson
Dear Nereid,
You have a clear, insightful and logical mind. Your kind narrating shows the key vulnerabilities in my article. Thanks for doing so.
The weakness of my article is obvious. The deduction is too simple, though the main point of the article looks reasonable. After reading your last post, I know what the word unsubstantiated really means. And I know my article is truly unsubstantiated. You should know that English is not my mother language and this is also one of my weakness in the debating.
For your last question, it seems that I have to modify my answer. Let me close also by answering your close question:
I still hold the point that my article holds. But there would be a long way to go before making it convincing. I hope those who consider my claim reasonable can be help. I myself may not be able to present quantification deduction whatsoever, though I would try my best. I am a government official, very busy in work everyday. So I have no much time to spend on it. I hope we people could help to testify my claim, whether the result is true or not, I would be full of gratitude.
Thank you all!
|
The guidelines for discussion in this ATM section of BAUT are clearly laid out in the BAUT Rules:
Quote:
If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.
People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.
Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.
If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.
|
I strongly advise you to read these guidelines, and to READ THIS THREAD.
It may be that your expectations of what sort of forum this ATM section is are misaligned with the clearly stated purposes of this ATM section.
|