Re: Reply to all
JGoldman10 wrote:ebrown_p wrote:JGoldman10 wrote:I was trying to have a serious discussion here-but apparently you people are spewing nonsense-I just asked a science expert for the answers.
Heliotrope gave you a perfectly fine set of responses, and I don't know of anything more to add. The rest of us are just looking to have a bit of fun at the threads expense..
.... I guess that would makes us parasites.
I know "paraparticles" are hyperthetical particles. I've seen the terms "parafield generator" and "parafield theory" used-I'd still like to know what a "parafield" is.
Perhaps I was a little too peremptorally dismissive of the subject. Please excuse my hasty words and allow me to say what I actually intended.
I meant, of course, for my words to convey the ultimate in contemptuous and absolute dismissal of a crassly obvious mental capitualtion to anti-thought perpetuated by the grossly lacking in any critical faculties or rationality.
Clearly I am not referring to you JG. You have merely asked a question regarding something you have heard.
I am referring to those who insist on using scientific sounding terminology to describe ideas that have no grounding in reality or any support from even the flimsiest of evidence whatsoever.
My ire is directed at them.
para-
Prefix.
1, Beside; adjacent to eg. parathyroid.
2, Beyond or distinct from, but comparable to eg. paramilitary.
Origin from Greek para ‘beside, beyond’.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/para?view=uk
A similar definition to 'meta-'.
For example; "paragravity" is gravity beyond gravity.
A "parafield" is a field beyond a field.
A "paraparticle" is a particle beyond a particle.
All of these words form part of the staple diet of the pseudoscientist who has no respect for, and less understanding of evidence but a great fondness for using scientific sounding terms to gull the foolish into accepting nonsense as the truth.
Paragravity et al is utter tripe and nonsense.
It has no relationship to anything currently understood to be connected with reality or anything based upon corroborated evidence.
It is not part of physics in any way shape or form.
If I were to make so bold as to offer advice I would suggest ignoring the terms and whatever source they came from.
Please do not take offence. My remarks are not directed at you.
There is no such thing as a stupid question.
Occasionally there are questions that amuse me enough to turn on the eloquent denunciation of foolishness.
None of that changes the truth of my words however.