Are Scientific Journals Passe? Has Peer Review Become Sneer Review? Do Scientists Steal From Submitted Papers? Is the Internet The New Way? MDT Rock On!!

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:


Elliot

Not surprising you just 'spammed me' with the same bullshit you've been
spamming this newsgroup 'forever and a day'. I suspect your bio is made
of the same bullshit MDT is.

'plonk'.

I wish we oculd have a civilized conversation regaridng MDT.

I want to keep thinks in the abstract, but you keep resorting to
personal attacks.

I wish we could have a civilized conversation regaridng MDT.

I want to keep thinks in the abstract, but you keep resorting to
personal attacks.

MDT rock ons: [Only registered users see links. ]

"Nick" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1123022246.352249.185980@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

Nonsense Nick.

It's only an abstract in your eyes. It's fluff. If you want to make a
convincing argument that 'no further attempts to theoreticaally
understand quantum gravity' are required then you will need to
experimentally verify that your postulate is actually a fact of nature.
Since MDT doesn't actually introduce any 'new physics', which can be
experimentaly verified, your postulate becomes the only testable
prediction.

James

ps-spamming this newsgroup with your opinions on string theory, or any
other theoretical endeavours to understand quantum gravity, doesn't
mean anything wrt your physics.

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

If 'new testable physics' isn't derived from MDT then you must
empirically show that your postulate is a fact of nature [if you expect
to be takin seriously]. Do you agree with this statement?

Now which is worse, my saying MDT is bullshit or your dodging this
question by spamming me with the same stuff, over and over?

[Only registered users see links. ]:

Apparently, it's also more suited to spamming.