Cranks on the endangered species list
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft
From: doug on 11 Dec 2008 21:03 Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:04:23 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>It's worth noting that Spaceman has decided to snap out of it and has >>turned his attention to other pointless pursuits. >>NoEinstein has petered off to a few random posts on the weekend, no >>longer able to muster the lung power to puff himself up anymore. >>Strich9 and his several aliases seemed to have finally stopped >>chattering. >>Brian Jones gave a brief gasp and announced he was quitting. >>ahahahanson is tired of hyenish cackling. >>Louis Savain no longer has the strength to tell people to pack it for >>months. >>Gerald O'Barr has finally shut up. >>Lester Zick has decided not to dress up anymore. >>Andre Michaud is sniffing less and less, and can still be heard over >>Marcel Luttgens. >>And there are a few others that seem to have faded away. >> >>"Henri Wilson" and Ken Seto still persist in their attention-mongering >>ways, and so their physical health must be fine even if their mental >>health has deteriorated. > > > Since Einstein's silly theory has been refuted 1000s of times here, However none of those attempts were successful. Ralph has been reduced to lying and then to making a fake poster to support him. there is > little point in continuing since the opposition is so pathetically weak. Yes, the opposition to relativity is pathetically weak. Ralph can only lie and bluster. One > can't even have a decent argument any more. > > I continue on just for the laughs....watching relativists wriggle, squirm and > snip the difficult parts is highly amusing... as well as reassuring. > I'm also doing another PhD, on brain damage and halucinatory behavior caused by > acute indoctrination. > > >>Time to till the field and see what weeds pop up in the spring! >> >>PD > > > > > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. > > .....
From: PD on 11 Dec 2008 22:24 On Dec 11, 6:50 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:04:23 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >It's worth noting that Spaceman has decided to snap out of it and has > >turned his attention to other pointless pursuits. > >NoEinstein has petered off to a few random posts on the weekend, no > >longer able to muster the lung power to puff himself up anymore. > >Strich9 and his several aliases seemed to have finally stopped > >chattering. > >Brian Jones gave a brief gasp and announced he was quitting. > >ahahahanson is tired of hyenish cackling. > >Louis Savain no longer has the strength to tell people to pack it for > >months. > >Gerald O'Barr has finally shut up. > >Lester Zick has decided not to dress up anymore. > >Andre Michaud is sniffing less and less, and can still be heard over > >Marcel Luttgens. > >And there are a few others that seem to have faded away. > > >"Henri Wilson" and Ken Seto still persist in their attention-mongering > >ways, and so their physical health must be fine even if their mental > >health has deteriorated. > > Since Einstein's silly theory has been refuted 1000s of times here, there is > little point in continuing since the opposition is so pathetically weak. One > can't even have a decent argument any more. I don't believe the theory *has* been refuted. There certainly have been a number of people who find the theory confusing and have posed puzzles to help clarify it -- that is not a refutation. There are certainly people who have found it simply incredulous and refuse to believe the experimental results in support of it -- that is not a refutation. There are certainly people who have some half-baked notions about alternative explanations, albeit without much in the way of concrete calculations -- that is not a refutation. There are certainly people who have made statements that they erroneously attribute to relativity, possibly due to a comic-book exposure to relativity -- that is not a refutation. A refutation of relativity would be reproducible experimental evidence in direct contradiction with the predictions of relativity. To date, nothing of that sort has been provided, and nothing else will suffice. > > I continue on just for the laughs....watching relativists wriggle, squirm and > snip the difficult parts is highly amusing... as well as reassuring. > I'm also doing another PhD, on brain damage and halucinatory behavior caused by > acute indoctrination. Oh, yes, of course you are. Do let us know from where you've matriculated with the degree. > > >Time to till the field and see what weeds pop up in the spring! > > >PD > > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. > > .....
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 12 Dec 2008 04:54 On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:24:47 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Dec 11, 6:50�pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:04:23 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >It's worth noting that Spaceman has decided to snap out of it and has >> >> >"Henri Wilson" and Ken Seto still persist in their attention-mongering >> >ways, and so their physical health must be fine even if their mental >> >health has deteriorated. >> >> Since Einstein's silly theory has been refuted 1000s of times here, there is >> little point in continuing since the opposition is so pathetically weak. One >> can't even have a decent argument any more. > >I don't believe the theory *has* been refuted. There certainly have >been a number of people who find the theory confusing and have posed >puzzles to help clarify it -- that is not a refutation. There are >certainly people who have found it simply incredulous and refuse to >believe the experimental results in support of it -- that is not a >refutation. There are certainly people who have some half-baked >notions about alternative explanations, albeit without much in the way >of concrete calculations -- that is not a refutation. There are >certainly people who have made statements that they erroneously >attribute to relativity, possibly due to a comic-book exposure to >relativity -- that is not a refutation. > >A refutation of relativity would be reproducible experimental evidence >in direct contradiction with the predictions of relativity. To date, >nothing of that sort has been provided, and nothing else will suffice. There is plenty.... and it is obvious. You are too blind to see it. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. ......
From: PD on 12 Dec 2008 09:31 On Dec 12, 3:54 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:24:47 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Dec 11, 6:50 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:04:23 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >It's worth noting that Spaceman has decided to snap out of it and has > > >> >"Henri Wilson" and Ken Seto still persist in their attention-mongering > >> >ways, and so their physical health must be fine even if their mental > >> >health has deteriorated. > > >> Since Einstein's silly theory has been refuted 1000s of times here, there is > >> little point in continuing since the opposition is so pathetically weak. One > >> can't even have a decent argument any more. > > >I don't believe the theory *has* been refuted. There certainly have > >been a number of people who find the theory confusing and have posed > >puzzles to help clarify it -- that is not a refutation. There are > >certainly people who have found it simply incredulous and refuse to > >believe the experimental results in support of it -- that is not a > >refutation. There are certainly people who have some half-baked > >notions about alternative explanations, albeit without much in the way > >of concrete calculations -- that is not a refutation. There are > >certainly people who have made statements that they erroneously > >attribute to relativity, possibly due to a comic-book exposure to > >relativity -- that is not a refutation. > > >A refutation of relativity would be reproducible experimental evidence > >in direct contradiction with the predictions of relativity. To date, > >nothing of that sort has been provided, and nothing else will suffice. > > There is plenty.... and it is obvious. You are too blind to see it. Just one example, please. One. > > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. > > .....
From: bjones on 12 Dec 2008 15:34
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:43:57 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >For record, the statement above "b jones is a crank", appears nowhere >in any post I've made on this thread. Therefore you've either made a >mistake in quoting it in this attribution style, or you are lying >about what I said. > >PD Hmmm...I've known some pretty dumb people, but it seems that you take the cake. Apparently, you actually believe that a thread entitled "Cranks on the endangered species list" and containing a list with my name does not say "b jones is a crank" Are you or are you not saying that? If you are, then, for the record, I need to again point out the fact that you have presented zero evidence of this damaging charge. And if you are not, then, I am both surprised and pleased. /bjones/ |