graphene / General Science and Electronics / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Science and Electronics

« Previous topic | Next topic »

graphene

Move Thread

LAN_403

ig.farne

Wed Oct 21 2009, 11:17PM

Registered Member #2444 Joined: Wed Oct 21 2009, 10:58PM
Location: roma - italy
Posts: 3

Hi all,
I am studing the graphene property and I should know your opinions about my DNTH Theory. Visit, please, my site:

/italiano/ricerche scientifiche/documenti/... Excuse me for my approximate english. Ignatius

Carbon_Rod

Thu Oct 22 2009, 02:37AM

Registered Member #65 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:43AM
Location:
Posts: 1155

Your must have a very good sense of humor.

Please watch this as it may help:

ig.farne

Thu Oct 22 2009, 10:21AM

Registered Member #2444 Joined: Wed Oct 21 2009, 10:58PM
Location: roma - italy
Posts: 3

Carbon Rod, Why do you say that the DNTH theory is baloney? You will not get you maybe a little opinionated? Explain! Ignatius.

Steve Conner

Thu Oct 22 2009, 10:42AM

Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706

No, the onus is on you to explain why it's NOT baloney. I looked at that site and saw references to things like telekinesis and room-temperature superconductivity. All extraordinary claims that demand extraordinary proof.

Please go away and re-read the site rules on pseudoscience. This thread will probably be locked soon.

site rules wrote ...
I. Free energy, electrogravitics, and all other types of pseudoscience are not allowed on any part of this site, nor are links to sites that deal primarily with these subjects. If this is what you seek, you can google many, many other sites and forums that will accept such topics. Discussion of such topics will only be allowed if someone has undeniable, 100% solid proof that this isn't pseudoscience. If this is the case, we'd also like to hear about when and where you will be accepting your Nobel Prize.

Renesis

Thu Oct 22 2009, 01:59PM

Registered Member #2028 Joined: Mon Mar 16 2009, 08:13PM
Location: Norway
Posts: 319

I just loved this part:

(5): BEEP =computer acustic signal.

ig.farne

Thu Oct 22 2009, 05:27PM

Registered Member #2444 Joined: Wed Oct 21 2009, 10:58PM
Location: roma - italy
Posts: 3

Steve McConner wrote ...

No, the onus is on you to explain why it's NOT baloney. I looked at that site and saw references to things like telekinesis and room-temperature superconductivity. All extraordinary claims that demand extraordinary proof.

Please go away and re-read the site rules on pseudoscience. This thread will probably be locked soon.

1) The DNTH theory is science, not pseudoscience. The research featured in this site are carried out methodically and rigorously scientific. The fact that these researches are not sponsored by universities or research centers labeled, does not mean they are not serious.
2) The burden of proof is given by the scientific evidence demonstrated in the structure of the photon and exposed to:

scientifiche/documenti/interferenza fotonica nello spazio libero.
If someone wants to refute the DNTH theory, make the "photon interference experiment" described in the site and refutes the result (if can). Maybe you do attend a few universities to do the experiment.
3) I'm sorry that only under "Italian" there are insights, and not in the "English". This is due to my imperfect knowledge of English. But the true lovers of science will also make an effort to translate from Italian to what is explained in one paragraph "Italian" of the website. It is really worth.
POST SCRIPTUM: I translated my reply from English through translational Google and therefore there may be inaccuracies. I apologize to the readers.

ORIGINALE IN ITALIANO:
1) La teoria DNTH Ã¨ scienza, non pseudoscienza. Le ricerche esposte nel sito sono condotte con metodo e rigore scientifico. Il fatto che tali ricerche non siano sponsorizzate da universitÃ o centri di ricerca blasonati, non significa che esse non sono serie.
2) L'onere della prova Ã¨ dato dai riscontri scientifici dimostrati nella struttura del fotone ed esposti a:

scientifiche/documenti/interferenza fotonica nello spazio libero.Se qualcuno vuole confutare la teoria DNTH faccia l'esperimento di interferenza fotonica descritto nel sito e confuti il risultato. Magari si faccia assistere da qualche universitÃ per fare l'esperimento.
3) Mi dispiace che solo al paragrafo "italiano" ci siano gli approfondimenti e non in quello "english". CiÃ² Ã¨ dovuto alla mia non perfetta conoscenza dell'inglese. Ma i veri amanti della scienza potranno anche fare uno sforzo per tradurre dall'italiano all'inglese ciÃ² che viene esposto nel solo paragrafo "italiano" del sito web. Ne vale veramente la pena.
Post scriptum: Ho tradotto questa mia risposta dall'italiano all'inglese tramite "traslate" di Google e pertanto potrebbero esserci delle imprecisioni. Me ne scuso con i lettori.
Ignatius

Proud Mary

Thu Oct 22 2009, 05:56PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Dear Ignatius,

we may make our mistakes and misunderstandings here at 4HV.org, but our standards are those of the peer-viewed scientific journals.

In a word, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary standards of proof."

There are very many sites dealing with unverifiable notions such as yours,
where I feel that you would feel more at home than our little oupost of Pure Reason,

Good Luck with your Beliefs,

Harry,
Moderator.

Bjørn

Thu Oct 22 2009, 06:04PM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

I am sorry but I could not understand any of your ideas and I was unable to find anyone that was able to understand it. The few things I could understand was very worrying and falls under the rules that Steve quoted.

I am not saying that your ideas are wrong, I am saying that we can't understand what you really mean so we can't make up our minds about them. Since this thread is following a predictable pattern that will just end up in a pointless argument I am closing it.

If you are going to mention your theory again you need to make it much clearer and understandable for everyone with all the required evidence, otherwise I fear that the next thread about it will just be a copy of this one.

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob