Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity
From: Eugene Stefanovich (eugenev_at_synopsys.com)
Date: 10/21/04
- Next message: Ben Bean: "Re: The Spin Proviso to Relativity"
- Previous message: AllYou!: "Re: Attack instead of explain or ignore."
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity"
- Next in thread: Larry Burford: "Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity"
- Reply: Larry Burford: "Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:39:04 -0700
Bilge wrote:
> Eugene Stefanovich:
> >Larry Burford wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Gerald, can you confirm that we do indeed agree on 1 and 2, and would
> >> you either agree-with or object-to 3 and 4?
> >>
> >> Dr. Van Flandern, do you see anything objectionable?
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> LB
> >
> >I think your formulation of the problem is very clear. You can count me
> >on the side of Dr. Van Flandern.
>
> You have to be kidding. Seriously, while you have a few misconceptions,
> I wouldn't have thought you to be kooky to the extent van flandern is
> kooky.
>
I do not agree with van Flandern on many things, but on the issue of
instantaneous propagation of electric and magnetic forces we are together.
Eugene.
www.geocities.com/meopemuk
- Next message: Ben Bean: "Re: The Spin Proviso to Relativity"
- Previous message: AllYou!: "Re: Attack instead of explain or ignore."
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity"
- Next in thread: Larry Burford: "Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity"
- Reply: Larry Burford: "Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]