More Negative Enuendo GDW, I don't know how old you are or what your education, experience or achievements are. But I certainly would not consider attacking you for what I don't know about. I suspect I am considerably your senior; which says nothing but I have been around for some time and if you like it or not I have had considerable success and recognition for my work. You have no basis what-so-ever to doubt my statements regarding UniKEF testing and to repeatedly use the same remarks is boring and improper. ******** Again, what testing? Where are the results? (oh yeah... April... riiiight) ************
Re: Smooshed You don't seem to have a valid principle issue. We point this out, and you come back with some nonsensical post.
See What I Mean GDW, See what I mean. Nothing but BS from supposedly intelligent people. ********** Was this through hotmail? ***********
Re: More Negative Enuendo Given the pictures on your website I will give you my personal guarantee that you are indeed my senior; you have had many more life experiences; you may be a great inventor; you may well be a successful contractor for nasa; you are indeed someone who has accomplished many things in life. Bravo, pip pip, cheerio, and all that good stuff. HOWEVER -- science recognizes none of these. Seniority and authority don't make good science -- logic and clarity make for good science. In none of your arguments for UniKEF have you: (1) presented a clear argument, (2) shown the validity of UniKEF through worked calculations, (3) shown derivations of the central points of your theory, (4) a clear literature review (that shows us that you understand the literature, and its limitations...something no science paper is without) and (5) thoroughness and precision. On "precision" -- my arguments against you do not require "precision" of a scientific nature because i'm not proposing anything just using analogies to explain things to you. You on the other hand are "presenting" your "theory" -- this puts the burden of being "precise" on you. See the difference? If Einstein had presented his theory of relativity with the same level of detail/precision/thoroughness/clarity as you have -- he would have been shot. He underwent the same critical process you are undergoing -- the difference is that he had valid points to argue, and something to show for it. Even at this stage of the argument, there has still been no evidence that relates to physics itself. All evidence you have presented relates to people's opinions, which is worth jack-squat. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Denial Persol, You and others can continue to pretend that you have not been shown a conflict with Relativity. But that fact has been seen by many that would disagree with you. That is where you seem to fall short. One would think I stand alone against Relativity. The fact is there are many that do so.I just happen to be one of the lesser educated ones that also say so. There are numerous PHD's that also say so and it comes down to which group of PHD's do you side with. I side with the ones that make sense and not the ones that cling to "Denial" at every turn. It is as simple as that and that does not translate to "MY" not understanding the finer points of Relativity. That is just your escape goat from appearing like (...............) that you have become. What a shame. ************************** If you wish to fool yourself into thinking that you have proven anything, you are mistaken. You continue to state that you presented a conflict in relativity but I don't see one. Arguing something you do not understand is not physics (and is not science). We are not arguing BS, but your false physics claims. I look forward to April 2003 coming and going without support for your claim. ******************************* April should indeed be a great pleasure for me. I await anxiously to watch you squirm once again.
Re: Denial I once again ask for you to show us this conflict with Relativity. If someone comes on here with valid Relativity conflicts then fine, I'll admit that contradictions exist. However, any theory you want to replace it with must be atleast as capable as Relativity. As for who you side with... it doesn't really matter. You don't understand the theory as it stands so I don't hold confidence that you'd see the 'right' side.
Cool... I always wanted to be a line of dots when I grew up. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Denial No, the PhDs who disagree with relativity (whoever they may be) would know exactly what is wrong with relativity. There is nothing wrong in claiming that relativity is flawed -- but you need to have reasons to back that up OTHER than "so and so thinks its wrong" and "my well-wishers believe in me" -- who gives a flying monkeys ass? If you asked my parents, they would say that I have lots of potential (yeah, they are my "well-wishers") but if I don't develop that potential through the rigorous process that all scientists are subjected to -- my work, my ideas, and my viewpoints are worth the crap in my toilet in the sense that I have contributed to real science. It all boils down to you not understanding what is required in a scientific paper or argument. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Admendment FYI: I have alaready ammended the text associated with the US Army letter. Seems strange that you haven't noticed that I have no problem with their notation about continued education. Maybe if I was supposed to be embarassed some how I should have edited that letter. The fact is I do have considerable education. Not as much as I would like but certainly not like you would hope to portray.
Re: Admendment Regardless of HOW MUCH education you have -- you have not been trained to properly present a scientific argument. end of story. I do not think PhDs are any more brilliant than you may be -- however, they are thorough and make their point clearly, you do not, you evade. :bugeye:
Persol, ********************* Re: Denial quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by MacM You and others can continue to pretend that you have not been shown a conflict with Relativity. But that fact has been seen by many that would disagree with you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I once again ask for you to show us this conflict with Relativity. If someone comes on here with valid Relativity conflicts then fine, I'll admit that contradictions exist. However, any theory you want to replace it with must be atleast as capable as Relativity. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are numerous PHD's that also say so and it comes down to which group of PHD's do you side with. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for who you side with... it doesn't really matter. You don't understand the theory as it stands so I don't hold confidence that you'd see the 'right' side. ******************* [[At least you haven't tried to deny that other PHD's say much of what I have said. Thereforewhat I have said is not without merit. Your arguement is not with me then it is with anyone that disagrees with you even though they may be you academic superior, with vastly more experience and information.]] ******************** quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- at is just your escape goat from appearing like (...............) that you have become. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cool... I always wanted to be a line of dots when I grew up. *************** [[ Without lowering myself to the level of all these highly educated professionals, I wanted to convey that it is a poor showing indeed for education]] GundamWing, ******************** Re: Denial quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by MacM ...There are numerous PHD's that also say so and it comes down to which group of PHD's do you side with. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, the PhDs who disagree with relativity (whoever they may be) would know exactly what is wrong with relativity. There is nothing wrong in claiming that relativity is flawed -- but you need to have reasons to back that up OTHER than "so and so thinks its wrong" and "my well-wishers believe in me" -- who gives a flying monkeys ass? If you asked my parents, they would say that I have lots of potential (yeah, they are my "well-wishers") but if I don't develop that potential through the rigorous process that all scientists are subjected to -- my work, my ideas, and my viewpoints are worth the crap in my toilet in the sense that I have contributed to real science. It all boils down to you not understanding what is required in a scientific paper or argument. ****************** [[So by attacking me and my view of Relativity you make the problem go away, because and only because, what I say isn't being said by a PHD, that has said the same thing. Makes real sense to me, how about you other folks? Avoid the message by attacking the messanger. Not a very strong position frankly]]
Originally posted by MacM At least you haven't tried to deny that other PHD's say much of what I have said. Thereforewhat I have said is not without merit. Your arguement is not with me then it is with anyone that disagrees with you even though they may be you academic superior, with vastly more experience and information. Wow, so not what I said. A phd who came in here and claimed something without proof I would try and shoot down. If a phd came in here with proof (experimental, mathematical, or logical) I would say 'Interesting' and if myslef and nobody else is capable of pointing out a critical flaw I'd assume that they are right. Being a phd has no issue here, except that I'd hope they would know better then trying to push a theory with no evidence. Who cares about 'academic superior' if there is no reason for the theory? Without lowering myself to the level of all these highly educated professionals, I wanted to convey that it is a poor showing indeed for education Wow, that line of periods really got your point across... bravo (/sarcasm) So by attacking me and my view of Relativity you make the problem go away, because and only because, what I say isn't being said by a PHD, that has said the same thing. Makes real sense to me, how about you other folks? Avoid the message by attacking the messanger. Not a very strong position frankly No avoid the message because the message makes no sense. I could care less if you have a degree at all. You arguement was flawed. Someone who knew what they were talking about would (hopefully) not present such a flawed argument.
Mac It looks like Tom Van Flandern is telling you the same thing as everyone else. And HE is a crackpot! http://www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6 You just can’t take a hint, can you? Or as you say, it's more fun to be a 'fly in the ointment.' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Let's run with this "cooking" analogy you brought up Mac. Ok, so you are not a cook. Let's now say that you propose a new recipe to 'other' cooks that tells them that the way they've been making 'coffee' with 'sugar' is wrong because obviously some people complain that it is 'too sweet'. Instead, you propose that people use 'salt' instead of 'sugar' which is clearly better than sugar because 'salt' dissolves well in water, its not 'sweet', and it is 'naturally' found in sea water. Do you think your argument would fly? Do you expect cooks to start making coffee using salt because obiously 'sugar' is a refined product and 'salt' is naturally found everywhere? Personally, I think most 'cooks' would tell you that you have no knowledge of 'cooking' and that you don't know what 'salt' is useful for, and you don't understand the current discontent with things being 'too sweet'. peace. :m:
Finally, do you think that being a 52K20 "nuclear reactor operator" means that you understand "relativity"? Homer Simpson was a "nuclear reactor operator", I don't buy his theory of relativity either.
TVF Q, quote: ********** Mac It looks like Tom Van Flandern is telling you the same thing as everyone else. And HE is a crackpot! *********** Tom has posted an intelligent response and I have followed that with an intelligent question. We are having an intelligent discussion. Something that seems lacking in these threads. And I dare you to comment on my stating I have asked him an intelligent question for I am referring to information stated by those working in the "Particle Entanglement" field. Thank you.
Diatribe Nonsense GDW, ***************** Let's run with this "cooking" analogy you brought up Mac. Ok, so you are not a cook. Let's now say that you propose a new recipe to 'other' cooks that tells them that the way they've been making 'coffee' with 'sugar' is wrong because obviously some people complain that it is 'too sweet'. Instead, you propose that people use 'salt' instead of 'sugar' which is clearly better than sugar because 'salt' dissolves well in water, its not 'sweet', and it is 'naturally' found in sea water. Do you think your argument would fly? Do you expect cooks to start making coffee using salt because obiously 'sugar' is a refined product and 'salt' is naturally found everywhere? Personally, I think most 'cooks' would tell you that you have no knowledge of 'cooking' and that you don't know what 'salt' is useful for, and you don't understand the current discontent with things being 'too sweet'. peace. *************** If you can't make an intelligent response why respond.
