Not wanting to derail the "dust thread" an more.
Have they actually produced anything even coming close to being a hypothesis? We know a theory is out of the question but, I don't remember them even getting to first base on this one.
Do they have anything that could be considered a hypothesis using any known definition of the term?
As far as I can remember they have a suspected material, they don't know the properties of or any method of application.
Did I miss something here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergo (Post 9931661) Simply that the nanothermite hypothesis is, imo, a better explanation of the observables than the fire hypothesis. And that arguments from incredulity (and ignorance) have so far done nothing to debunk it. |
Have they actually produced anything even coming close to being a hypothesis? We know a theory is out of the question but, I don't remember them even getting to first base on this one.
Do they have anything that could be considered a hypothesis using any known definition of the term?
As far as I can remember they have a suspected material, they don't know the properties of or any method of application.
Did I miss something here?
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1ecV93n
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire