Nomenclature

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Nomenclature

Unread post by junglelord » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:45 am

NASA stands for Nomenclature Are Surely Accurate

Do they ever use proper terminology?
Prominences are clouds of hydrogen held aloft by solar magnetic fields.
Clouds of hydrogen? Hot gas?
Does the word PLASMA mean ANYTHING to them?
Is the primal state of matter something they even know about?
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
tolenio
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:17 am

Re: Nomenclature

Unread post by tolenio » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:26 am

Hello,

What dissapoints me is that this forum does not differ from NASA.

If a reasonable new idea is offered the forum ignores the idea and attacks nomenclature and technical terms.

Many posting to the forum cannot see the forest for the trees, or the idea from the nomenclature.

Image

Tom
"The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so. As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves." Gospel of Thomas http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Nomenclature

Unread post by MGmirkin » Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:38 pm

Tom,
I assume the above comment is in reference to comments on a different thread posted recently where I (and possibly others) offered some technical correction to a snippet from one of your posts (or at least suggestions against making the same terminology mistakes as the mainstream).

Please don't take it personally or as criticism of you. It was certainly never intended that way, simply as friendly scholarly discourse with no ego involved. Let's try to avoid letting personal egos become involved or descend into rancor where it's really not called for. Likewise, let's keep it confined to the thread in which it occurs and resolve it there rather than let it spill into and hijack other threads.

Hopefully this is a reasonable request. Just trying to keep things friendly and move 'em along. :geek:

No hard feelings,
~Michael
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests