|
|
On 23 Jul, 05:08, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:13:02 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >On Jul 22, 5:59 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:31:46 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 21, 5:51 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:17:00 -0700 (PDT), PD
> >> >> <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> >> >That may be the case, but the acceptance of relativity does not hinge
> >> >> >on the MMX. The MMX *may* have offered a peek that inspired the guess
> >> >> >that Einstein made (though that isn't historically clear either), but
> >> >> >what sealed relativity versus the emission theory of light are two
> >> >> >happenstances that had nothing to do with the MMX.
> >> >> >1. A number of other experimental consequences that were predicted by
> >> >> >SR that turned out to be right.
>
> >> >> there are none.
>
> >> >> >2. A number of experimental consequences that were predicted by the
> >> >> >emission theory of light that turned out to be wrong.
>
> >> >> They have all been shown to be wrong.
>
> >> >> >The fact that the MMX alone cannot discriminate between the two
> >> >> >theories is irrelevant.
>
> >> >> The MMX is just one of many experiments that supports BaTh.
>
> >> >"Henry", as a big of tactical advice, if you're going to mount a
> >> >disinformation campaign, it's extremely important to do so from a
> >> >position of credibility. Since you are a known and storied
> >> >pathological liar, and since you have freely admitted that you have
> >> >read nothing which you attempt to discredit, and have been shown to be
> >> >generally incompetent in the subject innumerable times, you may find
> >> >your position to be less than ideal for the attempt.
>
> >> Draper, your defence has sunk to such a low level that your only remaining
> >> argument is to persistently call me a liar.
>
> >Because you are. There's no point in making an argument with someone
> >who is completely uninterested in truth.
> >There is no point in making
> >an argument to a religious zealot. There is no point in making an
> >argument to a shameless liar who has not a single care for the
> >integrity of what he says.
>
> Well I had better stop wasting time arguing with one then.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >An argument is a worthwhile strategy for someone who would be
> >embarrassed to insist the sky is pink after it is made plain that's an
> >incorrect statement. But you are wholly incapable of being embarrassed
> >-- a trait that is not uncommon among those who have no personal
> >dignity remaining.
>
> >> Why don't you behave like a man and
> >> admit defeat.
> >> No matter what you say or think, there is no doubt that Einsteinian
> >> relativity
> >> is now known to be pure nonsense from start to finish.
>
> >See? There's another lie. You say it is now known. By whom? Names,
> >please.
>
> >> >PD
>
> >> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> >> All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible
> >> unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second
> >> postulate.
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools.
> Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.- Hide
> quoted text -
>
Propose an alternative theory. It has to be one though that fits the
facts.
- Ian Parker
|
|