🚀 go-pugleaf

foolsrushin. wrote:

> On 3 Aug, 21:44, Occidental <Occiden...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>>On Aug 3, 4:09 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:38:53 -0700 (PDT), Occidental
>>><Occiden...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Yes it HAS been peer reviewed..!
>>>>>   I just told you its published in 2 peer reviewed
>>>>>journals:
> 
> 
> [snip.]
> 
> 
>>The number of citations received by a paper is a far better indicator
>>of quality than mere publication since citations represent the verdict
>>rendered by the entire academic community over a period of years,
>>rather than that of a small number of reviewers over a few weeks. The
>>first paper you list was published fourteen years ago and apparently
>>has no or few citations, ie it sank without trace, so we can infer
>>what the academic community thinks of it. The same is probably true of
>>the second.
> 
> 
> Sounds like mob rule of physics to me; 

Mob rule not! Correctness in terms of "what actually
has been shown to work" is more acceptable to the
greatest number. The distribution curve has a friend
in reasonability.

> we haven't yet got past the
> territorial nimby notions that knowledge is a matter of a vote by this
> or that Scientific Community.

You and your ilk may not have, but you don't speak for
rational peoples.

> Against all the odds of inertia, self-interest and systematic
> bamboozelment of the unscientifically-minded, science has, step-by-
> step, via binary investigation, conjecture, and refutation transformed
> the prospects of even the poorest on Earth.

As the invariable tom foolery that is socialism, you
seem to believe that socialist principles should
drive everything. It was only by thuggery that that
experiment lasted as long as it did.

> Whatever the validity of Hammond's conjecture or proof,

Start with there is none, nor can there ever be. Why even the
suggestion is ignoble.

> the attitude
> betrayed in the responses of his critics is the reason scientists fear
> ridicule and keep their heads down! 

It is not scientists keeping their heads down, it is the
fate designed for k00ks and cranks.

> In private, a space-time bubble,
> anti-gravity device? Who nose!

Proposing the equality of all ideas is stupid, reeking
of joy juice rather than reason.

> Priestley, a church minister and a theologian, could not keep his nose
> out of nature, and discovered, among other things 'phlogisticated
> air': learn what ensued:

> http://www.jimloy.com/physics/phlogstn.htm

As it is with the ministry, science calls many, choses few.

Where's the rub?