Re: Are there any civil anti-relativists?

On Feb 5, 12:20 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 4, 4:48�pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 4, 5:25�pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:f56bd4bf-bd93-4c71-ab0f-0ab662a52804@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Don't feed the troll .. you're playing his game.

On the contrary, it's my game, and he's playing it with me. I used to
make a fair amount of money off suckers in bars in college who thought
they were pretty good at 8-ball.

PD

Well, I am still waiting for the scientist who is going to explain
what is wrong with the Galilean transformation equations being used to
explain the transmission of light the way I use them.

THEY ARE WRONG.

How many variations of "they are wrong - see <example #23423423>" do
you require before you figure out what was known over a century ago?

That is exactly what the church court told Galileo while he was
alive. All you are doing is reciting dogma. What I would need to see
is , They are wrong because, and then you show the reason. Jeckyl did
it one time, but he is a one time wonder. Now he is no different from
any other scientist because he cannot see a mistake.
Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast