|
|
On Jul 24, 1:11 pm, Talebun <pmpark...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 24 Jul, 00:21, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT), Ian Parker <ianpark...@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.- Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> I do which you learn a little Astronomy. I am in fact a student of the
> subject. How can you ever see double stars? If light was ballistic
> light from one stars would arrive months, or even years before that of
> the other.
As student of astronomy you should know the stars are visible as a
point source, and they are detected by variation in brightness.
Now, how would you detect three stars, oribting at the figure eight
orbit?
|
|