sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Pentcho Valev - why not peer reviewed publication?

Subject: Re: Pentcho Valev - why not peer reviewed publication?
From: HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:21:38 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, fr.sci.physique, fr.sci.astrophysique

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT), Ian Parker <ianparker2@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>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:

>> >> >"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.

All the facts clearly point to light being ballistic in pure vacuum...
All arguments against the Ballistic nature of light have been shown to be
flawed.

Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer moving at v wrt the
source. 

>  - Ian Parker



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.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>