The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Whilst you seem to be a pillock that, even if correct, can't or
won't reference why you concider that you are correct.

But in general that's asking me to prove a negative, which of course
can't be done. If someone makes a ridiculous sounding assertion it
is surely for that person to prove he's right rather than for anyone
else to prove him wrong, isn't it?

No.

That's the normal way after all.

It may be the normal way to you, but its not the way *science* works.

Again, read Karl Popper.

It has nothing to do with science, or Popper, but with the logic of
argument.


Besides, just as an example, I've asked him three times now to define
'mass' and give a source for the definition he uses. Every time he
has been unable to do even that. On the other hand, I gave the
definition I use and quoted the source. So, please don't accuse me
of not doing so.

And you were given a more accurate scientific definition along the
lines of 'the property that resist changes in motion' i.e. inertia.

Not by you, I wasn't.

Is that the definition you use? If so, where is your reference to it?


Mass, energy, velocity, distance and time are precisely defined units
in the Newtonian worldview. I use them in that sense when considering
Physics.
The fact that Chanmbers definition is sloppy and unscientific is not
my problem.

It's a proper, reputable and accurate reference work which is called,
specifically, a 'Dictionary of Science and Technology'. Where better to
find a definition of a scientific term, eh?

On what basis do you descend from your cloud to call it sloppy and
unscientific?