A faster than light illusion.

Dinosaur,

The bulk of your post I think is appropriately qualified and I will not add comment.

However at the end I think you make an error.

ANS: IF a true FTL object came at earth, it would not arrive here. It would not be percieved. Lorentz Contraction would have it vanish at v = c. It would no longer exists in our physics. It would not cause negative nubmers because it no longer exists to us.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So past tense "came" means it already arrived, and yet it never arrives?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ORW,

ANS: "at" is a very important word here. You can't just drop it and change the meaning of the sentence. "Came at" does not state "Arrived at".


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All right, Ill give you that. But honestly, you really just seem to argue schemantics. Thats my opinion anyhow.

 

Hello ORW, I remember you from another board nice to see familiar personalities. Hello MacM, this discussion is so wideranging it is hard to know how or where to enter and whether to or not.

someone already did the 3-4-5 triangle or some other right triangle which always gets done when these jets come up and apparently superluminal velocity is mentioned.

Does everybody accept that rite triangle business, or do some want further discussion of it or not understand it or reject it or something?

I found a good page on it using a link that MacM gave, made it very clear with ordinary Euclidean geometry in a way that Ole Roemer would have understood in 1675. Roemer discovered light has a finite speed in 1675 using a clock and telescope and basic Euclidean geometrical reasoning and he would have understood apparent superluminal. And after 1675 if not before, Newton (who met Roemer) would have understood it too. So apparent SL velocity is very Western Civ mainstream.

Which is not to say that ALL perceived SL motion must be of this particular type----but this particular type is, in effect, an easily grasped optical illusion. Which thanks to MacM link I just came across an excellent diagram explaining it. I will fetch the link and edit it in here

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/radioastronomy/Chapter5.pdf

WHOH! It was the link JamesR gave, which I followed to get to this one. Thanks JamesR! You go to this JPL-NASA page and scroll down to where it says "page 46" and discusses superluminal and there is a really really clear 3-4-5 triangle that says it all. Apologies to both about where I found it.

 

ORW,

ANS:Thanks. I do regret that you hold that opinion, however, there isn't much I can do about that other than try to point out a couple of factors:

1 - My writting style is probably a primary fault here but it isn't arguing symantics. More often than not people do miss minute but key elements in my writing that results in misunderstanding a key point. That is my fault to a degree.

2 - I don't take the entire blame since it is generally missed because the attackers read my words with haste and less than due consideration. A fact that I have contributed to by coming to this board and pissing everybody off in the first night.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

3 - On the otherhand the spirited exchanges that I seem to prompt here seems to have a readership. And James correctly pointed out sometime back that others were learning from the debates.

4 - It would be better if the debates were less assults and more issue but that isn't in my control. I have never attacked. I have counter attacked and I will continue to counter attack. I won't just sit and let BS be spread like butter.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

MacM: I agree with your following remark.

That is why I post my opinions which disagree with yours. I do not like to see your BS posted in a forum dedicated to physics & mathematics.

 

Hi Mark,

Not a problem on the mis-link. The debate seems to boil down to a simple matter.

I posted data from a paper on the web that claimed extra ordinary "Proper Motion" for (4) specific Quasars.

They made no mention of "In line of sight motion" and made no effort to correct for that. They instead were attacking Red Shift as being at fault for the FTL observations. But the numbers were so high (5,200 c) that I felt Red Shift error was an unlikely explanation.

These authors were Relativitist and felt FTL simply could not be true and therefore Red Shift had to be a false concept.

My position was two fold.

1 - Relativity has not been proven with respect to the v = c limit. It is mathematically projected and anticipated due to the infinite energy claim, etc but it certainly has had no emperical testing.

2 - James supplied the mathmatical correction from a link showing how it was derived. My objections were based on two factors.

a - The first paragraph stated that since current theory (meaning Relativity) disallowed FTL motion that they must therefore devise and explanation.

I did not like the changing of direct observation because Relativity disallowed the observation and because of the word "Devise". It seems arbitrary.

Don't misunderstand. I have never said the mathematics are not consistant and does explain how under certain conditions an illusion of FTL might be generated.

b - I also got attacked because I referred to it as relavistic correction. They argued it is simply P's Thereom. While I certainly see the triangle and P's Thereom at play, I still contend it is relavistic correction of direct observation because the sides of the triangle are based on v vs c by the (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5 formula.

Now as ORW above has stated many see that as argueing symantics and perhaps it is but I have to say I am arguing for the correct description and they simply want to ignore that it is relavistic correction. It is to some degree a mute point but not when they want to call names and make stupid remarks about my understandings of it all. Then it becomes personal and I still say I'm right and they aren't going to change my mind on that issue. So why argue - right. Because they simply refuse to acknowledge a simple truth. The components of P's thereom are based on relative velocities.

My arguement was that there was no mention of In line of sight motion (LOSM) in the data and they want to argue that it must be there otherwise there would be no FTL observation.

My counter point is that they may be correct but it is improper to make that assumption and they should continue to investigate the possibility that v = c is not a limit and Relativity needs modifying.

I don't want to go into it here but I find there is alternative explanations for some data that is being relied upon to claim such a v = c limit. And if I am correct then v = c is only a limit in certain cases but not all.

My position is not without some current scientific findings which support my view (Unruh's Affect).

Because of that I sent a question to "Ask an Astronomer" about this issue and the response came back using the word "Most" FTL observations can be explained by the above relavistic correction.

I was accused of faking the response even though I posted the link. So I sent a followup question specifically addressing the (4) Quasars in question. The response came back saying they saw nothing to exclude the possibility of LOSM and it is assumed that the FTL motion is so explainable .

Still not confirmation that such LOSM is actually there.

So I raised the issue of Blue Shift and was accused of changing the subject. But in reality the point was if a light source were LOSM then we should see a Blue Shift especially if the LOSM is a substantial % c as is required to cause the illusion.

Nobody here seems to know anything about any Blue Shift in the data. So my view is still that the LOSM and relavistic correction are unwarranted adjustments of direct observation and we should be considering the alternative explanations.

From my perspective this is where we are on the issue.

Thanks for your interest and any input.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

Dinosaur,

ANS: I have no problem if you or anyone thinks something I have said is incorrect. But it would be more approprite to address the issue and correctly point out some error rather than simply refer to authority or make derogatory remarks.

As above ORW correctly and politely admitted he had mis-read my statement. That more often than not is the problem and not a basic flaw in what has been posted.

When you or occasionaly others have made a valid point and I have been in error, I have readily admitted it. I have clearly caught others making mistakes and they defend them to the extremes and will never admit to error.

What you call BS from me is usually an alternative explanation of some issue. Those alternatives are never explored or even addressed in a technical or scientific way. That is unfortunate.

For example once again. Unruh's Affect supports the alternative explanation I have been giving for the findings that infinite energy is required to accelerate to v =c, perfectly. Yet not one person has shown interest in that fact.

My words would be one thing but my words in this case are now backed by solid scientific papers. So let me just suggest that perhaps it isn't Mac's BS but Mac's views that are being opposed.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

James R.,

ANS: Jets or ejecta. Although one paper simply talked about Quasar proper motion and my comment and concern about that was "Relative to what?".

ANS: Your response misses the point of my statement. Of course we have data from accelerators and that is how the mathematical projection can be made and why such a limit is anticipated.

But as I said v = c is a limit in some cases but may not be in others. It is this possibility that is not being considered or the v = c limit itself that has been tested.

This goes to the issue of decreasing energy transfer efficiency vs relavistic mass. Energy transfer efficiency can cause the identical energy vs accleration relationship found in accelerators, etc but allows the possibility of other means of energy transfer that may not have such an efficiency loss. If that is the case then v = c may not be an absolute limit.

ANS: I wouldn't object to loudly over this answer. But it soes seem not only the first but all efforts are to fit new observations into old concepts.

ANS: You are trying to explain new data with Relativity by using relavistic correction of the data. Before you start to argue about that let me remind you I am not saying doing that is incorrect.

I have only said and continue to say that doing so isn't fully justified in the absence of observing the LOS Motion required to employ that solution. I don't think you have shown such motion in the data. It is merely assumed.

ANS: This may be symantic but so be it. We will continue to disagree here because the formula is (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5. that is based on relative velocities, not (1 - (x/y)^2)^.5 or a dimensional form.

ANS: Good point. Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ANS: Good to see some flexability in your response.

But frankly until you can show me LOS Motion in the data or Blue Shift in the Data then your assumption that it is there is not fully justified and you are looking at the very new data that you claim one must see and that I have said is such data.

But as was and is my complaint the data is not being considered because you make the assumption that it cannot be real and therefore there is other motion (which is not observed) is merely assumed to make the new data fit the preconcived conclusion that Relativity is right.

Do you not see my complaint in clearer light yet?

The solution is only a solution if the unobserved motion actually exists.

Show me that motion and I have no objection to the use of the formula (by whatever process you want to call it).

Apply it as it currently is being done based on the assumption Relativity is correct and the aassumption theefore that such motion must exists and it will remain relavistic correction to make new observations fit Relativity.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

James R.,


"A number of observations" response doesn't cut it. Show me LOSM for the (4) Quasars in question. For you to take a osition that you are correct you must show such motion in each and every case otherwise you are discounting data which may be actual FTL motion should no such LOSM exist.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

Mark: MacM posted a summary of his view of the status of this thread. Here is another point of view.

Another thread (Quasar Question) had a lengthy discussion, which included a post by me relating to an illusion of FTL motion. The illusion is described in the very first post to this thread. I created this thread because I thought that people not interested the subject matter of the other thread might be interested in the illusion. The illusion is due to relativistic speed viewed from an astronomical distance. The illusion is well known and involves only classical physics reasoning.

Due to his general attitude, MacM viewed this thread as an attack on his views in the other thread and brought in issues not relevant here. At least one other person responded to the issues raised by MacM.

I hope you will form your own opinion of MacM after reading some of the threads started by him. My own opinion is as follows.

• MacM has a theory of his own which he considers a replacement for or an improvement on relativity. In particular, he disagrees with the time/distance contractions and the speed of light limit on velocity. He looks for opportunities to bash relativity.
• He tends to have faith based views like a religious person rather than logic & evidence based views like a scientist. It is not clear to me whether he does not understand certain concepts or merely ignores cogent arguments counter to his views.
• His original thread was titled “Quasar Question”. It would have been intellectually honest if he had named the thread “My view of FTL proper motion” or something more suggestive of the intent of the thread, which was to present his views on certain issues relating to relativity.
• His initial post mentioned a quasar with a proper motion of 5200c (5200 times the speed of light). Due to his lack of knowledge relating to Quasars, he did not realize that the source of this data was based on some erroneous measurements and/or misinterpretation of observed data on photographic plates. Quasars are known to have no measurable proper motion, although they have huge Big Bang recession speeds. One of the methods used to find quasars is to search for objects which appear to be stationary (id est: No proper motion). Quasars are used as stationary references in measurements of the proper motion of other astronomical objects.
• MacM claims that proper motion is actual correct motion, a view that is contrary to the very definition of proper motion. (The bold part of the previous sentence is from his first post to the other thread).
• There are jets or ejecta from quasars and/or galaxies with proper motions exceeding the speed of light. As far as I know, the proper motions are in the range of 2-20c, with none beyond 100c, making 5200c ridiculous, a fact which should be known to anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of modern astronomy. Since MacM is always looking for ways to further his views, he seized on the erroneous claim of a 5200c proper motion and used it to start the other thread.
• The illusion described in this thread is a valid classical physics explanation of how an appearance of FTL motion can be caused by actual motion less that the speed of light. Due to the considerable experimental evidence in favor of the relativity speed of light limitation and the logic of the explanation, FTL proper motion is not considered to be actual FTL motion. Of course, mainstream science would reconsider if there was any evidence to the contrary. MacM claims that mainstream science ignores any evidence contrary to relativity and will not allow the publishing of views contrary to relativity. I am sure that views backed up by more than opinion would be published, although mainstream science will not waste time on mere opinions unsupported by evidence.
• The blue shift issue raised by MacM relates to the lack of any measurement of a component of velocity along the line of sight for objects with FTL proper motion (the component of motion perpendicular to the line of sight). He makes an issue of the lack of such measurements. It has been explained to him that red/blue shift measurements can only be made for radiant objects like stars (or perhaps for plasma ejected from a star), and parallax measurements can only be made for objects within about 100 light years of earth. There is no way that the line of sight component of velocity can be measured for the jets and ejecta with FTL proper motions. MacM does not seem willing to accept or perhaps does not understand this problem with line of sight speed measurements at astronomical distances.
• It is obvious to any one who thinks about the issue that almost no objects move on a celestial sphere with no component of velocity toward the solar system. Logic indicates that such motion perpendicular to our line of sight is a rare exception. Even in the absence of measurable motion along the line of sight, it far more reasonable to assume that almost all objects have a component of motion along the line of sight, rather than assuming that most do not. Yet MacM brings up the issue of lack of such measurements again and again. This is but one example of his ignoring cogent arguments counter to his view.
  
  In view of the evidence in favor of relativity, it would be quite reasonable to require MacM to show evidence that there is no Line of sight motion for objects with FTL proper motion. He, of course, claims that those in favor of relativity must show evidence of line of sight motion. Those who wish to refute a well established theory are subject to the burden of proof, and should not be surprised to find that their unsupported opinions are not acceptable.
• I am almost certain that the reference to Unruh’s effect by MacM is an attempt at obfuscation. I spent a little time reading about the Unruh effect and it does not seem pertinent to the issues of this or the other thread. MacM is prone to make misleading citations. He once sent me on a wild goose chase through many pages of astrophysics analysis written by experts for experts. The article did not seem to be pertinent to the issue being discussed. I am sure that he did not understand the article any better than I did.
• In the other thread, there was reference to a general analysis of the FTL proper motion illusion (The analysis in this thread is for a specific example). MacM wasted a lot of time arguing that the general analysis used relativity principles due to the format of some mathematical expressions, and denied that the analysis was a classical analysis, implying a bias in favor of relativity. He does not seem to realize that terms involving v/c (velocity/LightSpeed) can occur in a classical analysis. I suppose he has never seen such expressions in any context other that a discussion of relativity.
• His knowledge of relativity is limited (as is mine) to what appears in “relativity for dummies” type articles.

There are other issues I could mention, but the above should give you a picture of my view of MacM and his theories. It might be interesting (but likely a waste of a lot of your time) to review this and the other thread in order to come to your own conclusions. Be prepared to use logic, patience, careful analysis, and critical judgment capabilities.

 

Mark: I did not notice the most recent post by MacM, which references 4 quasars and requests evidence relating to line of sight motion.

He still insists on claiming that quasars have measurable proper motion. The 4 quasars in question are those mentioned in an erroneous article, which claims measured proper motions as high as 5200c.

I thought he had given up on the 5200c proper motion of a quasar. I imagine that he thought he could reintroduce it here without being called on it again. If he does not know that quasars have no measurable proper motion, he should do some study on the subject of quasars.

He still is implying that there is no line of sight motion for some objects with FTL proper motion. Such an implication is an unsupported opinion. I suspect that it is a deliberate attempt at obfucation, although MacM might consider it a valid argument suggesting a major flaw in relativity.

 

Distortions, Distortions and BS

Dinosaur & Mark,

The link from my original post. Please note the following blue highlited points. We have always been discussing Jets and Ejecta and not Quasar Motion perse as Dinosaur claims that I claimed. It is outright distortion.

http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1982/NewMotion.html

Quasar TON 202 : Pseudo-color radio map observed by the VLA at 5 GHz, proper motion of core is perpendicular to the jet axis.

ANS: Why on earth would you think they would not be interested in FTL if it is unexplained and in my thread is wasn't explained. The explanation given by you is only an assumption and is without evidence or observation. The direct observation is FTL and that was the issue being discussed.

ANS: No objection here since you are refering to the possible illusion

ANS: Nothing wrong with my attitude except I won't let you or others pull the wool over peoples eyes. That is why you put this thread here, you don't (because you can't) want to answer the questions raised in my thread.

ANS: I so do I hope you will form an opinion. One based on my actual statements and actual views, not those claimed by my detractors in a losing effort to paint me an imbecile because my questions seem to have answers that they would rather ignore.

ANS: False allegation. I have repeatedly stated I agree with Lorentz Contraction. I have posted a challenge to time dilation entitled "3 Clocks Again" but before you listen to their version I can only suggest that you view the string and decide for yourself if my questions have been properly resolved. I contend they have not.

ANS: Again False. I do hold that v = c may be a limit in some cases and not others. That is based not only on my own theory and its mathematical conclusions but current discoveries such as "Unruh's Affect"

ANS: False once more. My views are not faith based. They are based on logical alternative explanations for data used by Relativists to argue for Relativity. Where the same results can be explained by other reasonable means. My point is I choose to follow those explanations that provide a physical cause, unlike Relativity which is purely mathematical and clearly only faith based where actions occur without a cause.

ANS:False enuendo once agian. I in fact posted the encyclopedia definition of proper motion and it is exactly what I claimed it was.

False again. Nobody other than yourself has said the data is flawed, not even "Ask a High Energy Astronomer" when I specifically asked if the data was flawed. They had no objection to the data. So either put up information showing the data is flawed or shut up.

ANS:I agree and have never disagreed. In fact when you fisrt suggested the data was actual Quasar motion my response was "Relative to what????"

ANS: My claim was, and is correct, that "Proper Motion" is motion traverse (orthogonal) to the line of sight and is therefore actual motion. That is the correct definition of "Proper Motion" and the correct physical facts associated with "Proper Motion". You arbitrarily include other motions - i.e. substantially in Line Of Sight Motion (LOSM) and the illusion it creates for "Apparent Proper Motion" as being Proper Motion. You sir are dead wrong. I posted the definition of "Proper Motion" which specifically added at its conclusion that it includes "NO MOTION IN THE LINE OF SIGHT".

You are the one that ignores what you are told even by experts.

My position was and still is. In absence of actual LOSM being observed such FTL "Proper Motion" should be assumed to be a possibility and to not merely assume the motion not observed is there and that it creates the illusion.

ANS: NOTE: You are wrong once again. You claim "Proper Motion" above and it may or may not be Proper Motion. It may be "Apparent Proper Motion" which would include your illusive LOSM. But no LOSM is evident in the data and if it were "Proper Motion" then as I have stated it would be Actual FTL Motion. Get your physics straight for gods sake before trying to attack me with your screwed up double talk.

ANS: Wrong again. The thread made it clear that the authors didn't believe the data but were blaming Red Shift. My statement was and is I don't believe an error in Red Shift could produce a 5,200 c error. Once again nobody but you has claimed the data in error, including high ranking astronomers when specifically asked if the data was in error.

ANS: Yes and there is nothing wrong with that conclusion as long as one either sees such LOSM or acknowledges that in its absence then Relativity is wrong and FTL is possible. That to include the illusion affects as an explanation in absence of observation of such motion that the conclusion is an assumption not a fact.

ANS: Just as I have argued the illusion solution is based in its entireity on the preconcived idea that the v = c limit imposed by Relativity is fact. They state since FTL can't be real according to Relativity therefore there must be LOSM. My complaint is and has been that is bad science. To adjust direct observation without observing the LOSM based on the preconcieved notion that Relativity is valid.

I raised the issue of Blue Shift as a means of telling if LOSM was present. Guess what not one of these guys addressed the absence of BLue Shift in the data which should mean LOSM is not present and FTL is real. Instead of addressing that issue they complained that I was changing the subject. Imagine that a means of verifying LOSM which would determine the truth about the FTL observations and Relativity and that issue is "Off Topic". Bull. They don't want it addressed..

ANS: So that is why they published this LOSM illusion explanation, they have actual evidence. Why didn't you say so. See what I mean Mark? They have forked tounges.

ANS: Thank you. Now tell us why there is no Blue Shift in the data for the 5,200 c and other FTL objects since they are ejecta from the Quasar. Seems to me that you fell into your own trap. If there is no blue shift then there is no LOSM and the observation becomes True Motion not Apparent Motion.

ANS: And why not?

ANS: Bull S___. Then why do you suppose I raised the issue of Blue Shift.

ANS

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

nly partly true. Actual "Proper Motion" is equally likely to LOSM. Only LOSM at narrow angles causes the illusion. Therefore by those standards of odds it would be more likely that FTL was real than not.

ANS: The only thing ignored here has been by you.

ANS:This is funny. No concept, idea is valid unless there is direct evidence but now it is my burden to show that the absence of direct evidence is valid. Ever try to prove a negative? I have not said nor would I consider it appropriate to disregard the possibility of LOSM being an explanation. All I have said is it is improper and bad science to assume it and disregard the alternative which is that FTL is real and there is no LOSM. I don't think that is a Crackpot view. I think it is the proper scientific view opposed to acting on assumption in absence of actual evidence based on a mathematical concept with affect and no cause.

ANS: You poor pathetic fo_l. Of course it is unrelated to this issue and was it stated what issue it was related to. It was related to your ongoing and continued attacks on me when you are full of it. I cited Unruh in relation to my view (for 50 years) that the relavistic mass problem is merely an illusion and that the true facts may be that energy transfer efficiency decreases with relative velocity. Then there is no mass change. I stated that the applied energy loss was being stored in space. Of course I had no idea how but conceptually it worked fine and is a very logical alternative to Relativity.

Along comes Unruh. Guess what he finds that virtual particles become real particles during acceleration. Guess where the energy comes from to cause the converion - From the accelerating mass. BINGO. My view is substantiated. My views are therefore not Crackpot just because that are different than yours.

ANS:I can't comment here since I have no idea what you are talking about. But assuming you did go on a wild goose chase it was not because I directed you to something that was unrelated.

ANS: The formula he mentioned is (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5. and it is relavistic in nature and I don't care that it also follows Pythagoras. Its presentation was made verbally based on Relativity and its disallowing FTL. He is wrong I am right, It is as simple as that.

ANS: I'll resist the opportunity to tell you my background training and experience and only say I am no dummy, ignoramous, imbecile or Crackpot. The simple truth is they have a hard time with me since they can't BS there way through and that irriatates them.

I do hope you take the opportunity to discover for yourself the type of people you are dealing with here.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

Dinosaur and James R.,


Mark: I did not notice the most recent post by MacM, which references 4 quasars and requests evidence relating to line of sight motion.

He still insists on claiming that quasars have measurable proper motion. The 4 quasars in question are those mentioned in an erroneous article, which claims measured proper motions as high as 5200c.

I thought he had given up on the 5200c proper motion of a quasar. I imagine that he thought he could reintroduce it here without being called on it again. If he does not know that quasars have no measurable proper motion, he should do some study on the subject of quasars.

He still is implying that there is no line of sight motion for some objects with FTL proper motion. Such an implication is an unsupported opinion. I suspect that it is a deliberate attempt at obfucation, although MacM might consider it a valid argument suggesting a major flaw in relativity.



report | quote | edit | 10-01-03 at 11:34 AM


James R
Just this guy, you know?
3250 posts
Well said, Dinosaur.


__________________
JR

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle.\


ANS: You both are full of it. Read and re-read the above. You have shot your mouth off one to many times. I have not said nor claimed most if not all that you assert and you not I are all wet on the facts.

Thanks Dinosaur. this post makes who is being truthful here very obvious.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius

 

James R.,

I have just spent a fair amount of time addressing each and every falsehood spouted by Dinosaur above. You have clearly choosen to not acknowledge those falsehoods and wish to continue to purport to be icon of knowledge and that nothing that disagrees with your view can be valid.

So be it. Others will (I hope) actually go back and verify what was actually said and what my views actually are. when they do you and the others here will have lost considerable crediability.

Beyond that I have no ambition to continue to chase you around correcting your statements.

One last point. You would be surprised at the number of PM's I get that say they agree with me. But they are smart enough to not state so on this MSB since you and the other would attempt to do to them as you attempt to do to me. I say attempt since I do believe that truth will prevail and you sir are already losing credability.

Since the truth of my position is ringing clear to others I will tolerate the BS attacks to insure valid alternative views are continued to be posted

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.