In Reply to: Scientific evidence for dummies posted by geoffkait on March 1, 2012 at 06:50:54:
Pl;ease read the Wikipedia very carefully and then take your very own explanation ( of the clock)in light of what it states. Your explanation of the clock is not evidence nor proof.
It is pure speculation, but even more insidiously, it is an attempt at a scientific like Mumble jumble, with missing links in logic and and extremely speculative statements which have no grounding in any current physics.
You can claim that it ain't so all you like, but just name one reputable scientific journal which will support your view point. Even the audiophile journals which say they hear something ( which I do admit I do hear, BTW, that was never the issue), will dispute your rationale.
Stu
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Scientific evidence for dummies - unclestu 13:58:50 03/02/12 (3)
- RE: Scientific evidence for dummies - geoffkait 14:39:32 03/02/12 (2)
- Scientific evidence - unclestu 14:59:04 03/02/12 (1)
- RE: Scientific evidence - geoffkait 15:23:32 03/02/12 (0)