Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Board Administration ⇒ Suggestions and Questions ⇒

Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate
Taq
Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display
Message 267 of 653 (655131)
03-07-2012 5:34 PM 		Reply to: Message 266 by foreveryoung
03-07-2012 5:00 PM

Re: proving setterfield wrong?
I was reading about that on another thread and saw someone say that the constancy of the quasar period proves setterfields speed of light theories wrong. Can someone point me to an article on the web where this was done?
​
This paper has several refutations of Setterfield's c-decay theory, including the discussion on pulsars:
​
http://homepage.mac.com/...1/cdecay/cdecay_2007Jellison2.pdf
This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 5:00 PM foreveryoung has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by foreveryoung, posted 03-08-2012 12:59 AM Taq has not replied
  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display
Message 274 of 653 (655204)
03-08-2012 4:21 PM 		Reply to: Message 272 by foreveryoung
03-08-2012 4:09 PM

Re: searching online through the literature
A good resource is Google Scholar:
​
scholar.google.com
​
You can even choose to keep patents out of the search results. Most of the returns will be peer reviewed papers. I actually prefer Google Scholar over Pubmed when searching for biomedical research papers.
​
For physics, the classic database is arXiv.org, but biology is more my thing so others may know of a better resource for physics papers.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by foreveryoung, posted 03-08-2012 4:09 PM foreveryoung has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by foreveryoung, posted 03-08-2012 4:42 PM Taq has replied
  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display
Message 276 of 653 (655216)
03-08-2012 6:05 PM 		Reply to: Message 275 by foreveryoung
03-08-2012 4:42 PM

Re: searching online through the literature
Using the search terms "bank gully erosion precipitation" at scholar.google.com returned quite a few papers that appear to be up your alley.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by foreveryoung, posted 03-08-2012 4:42 PM foreveryoung has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by foreveryoung, posted 03-08-2012 6:58 PM Taq has not replied
  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display
Message 497 of 653 (860676)
08-09-2019 5:59 PM 		Reply to: Message 494 by mike the wiz
07-11-2019 9:50 AM

Re: Please name this fallacy
mike the wiz writes:
​
CONCLUSION: I think atheists can use things like confirmation bias and post hoc reasoning just as technicalities. It's a way of broadly concluding all prayer is unanswered, as a sort of sweeping generalisation, where in actuality they themselves don't know that it was not answered.
​
That would be a classic burden of proof fallacy.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2019 9:50 AM mike the wiz has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024