例句與造句

1. This doesn't even meet the relevance threshold for pseudophysics.
2. Both articles are currently also cat'ed into : Category : Pseudophysics.
3. Agreed, has a history of POV pushing bizarre pseudophysics unsupported by research, and is not above wikilawyering or sailing close to WP : NPA himsef.
4. Is the lack of mainstream approval, touted like a blind butcher ax by the self-appointed judges of the pseudophysics domain, in and of itself, really sufficient to declare science good or pseudo?
5. You were involved in the creation of this pseudophysics smear category to suit your narrow-minded POV-and most of your editing time is spent on providing false information on the scientific works in the non-mainstream categories for the sole purpose of allowing you to dump them into pseudophysics.
6. It's difficult to find pseudophysics in a sentence. 用pseudophysics造句挺難的
7. You were involved in the creation of this pseudophysics smear category to suit your narrow-minded POV-and most of your editing time is spent on providing false information on the scientific works in the non-mainstream categories for the sole purpose of allowing you to dump them into pseudophysics.
8. Obviously human knowledge will change over the centuries and judgements will change, but this is out of our reach . : Category : Pseudophysics better captures the difference between Autodynamics and Special relativity . "'Delete "'.-- Pjacobi 08 : 12, July 15, 2005 ( UTC)
9. I can't find more than 10 edits by Pcarbonn to any article other than cold fusion, and in the most recent version, I don't see the word pseudoscience at all ( last I heard about cold fusion it was in a class dedicated to the identification and investigation of pseudoscientific theories [ although : Category : Fringe physics is in : Category : Pseudophysics which is in : Category : Pseudoscience ] ).
10. (1 ) I am unable to verify that " Pseudophysics " exists as a recognised topic, with no references ( a ) in the Smithsonian / NASA ADS Abstract service ( b ) a handful of vague references in Google Books ( c ) No mention in Gogle definitions ( 2 ) Consquently it is difficult to check the criteria for inclusion in this category objectively, which relies on the subjectivity of individual editors, which could be considered controversial, and hence Original Research.