Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death

From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 06/09/04 

Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:03:20 +0000 (UTC)

"Midjis" < @ . > wrote in message
news:Xns95036B261357DLibriumLibertasEst@217.32.252.50...
> cs_cagle@direcway.com (CCRyder) wrote:
>
> > This stuff is going out to the public as if it had everything to
do
> > with the facts. In reality it is pseudoscientific gibberish which
has
> > become the accepted dogma of modern physics and astrophysics
academia.
> > Now it is being presented to the public as if it were genuine
> > knowledge when it is really nothing of the kind.
>
> I have no qualifications in astrophysics. My knowledge of physics
> extends as far as a GCSE (British secondary school) qualification
and
> many years of casual interest. So I am completely unqualified to
ask
> this question, but I am going to ask it anyway:
>
> If something is the 'accepted dogma of modern physics and
astrophysics
> academia', then is it not reasonable for the public also to accept
such
> 'dogma' until we are told otherwise? Why should we reject a model
that
> seems to conform with what we are told of gravity and other factors?
As
> I said, I am not qualified to challenge your remarks about
> 'electromagnetotoroids', but I have always believed that science is
about
> disproving things. So I would be interested to see you show that
binary
> systems are *not* formed by the capture of one star by another.
> Remember, you scorn the idea that this could be, so you must show
that
> this has never happened for your scorn of 'current dogma' to be
> justified.
>
> But then, having read the remainder of your post, particularly your
> comments on your 'Isaacium', it is clear that you are fully
expecting to
> be mocked, and indeed that you welcome such so that you can rail
against
> 'pseudo-scientists'.
>
> By the way, to the best of my knowledge "Isaac" simply means "he
laughs".

Rest assured that with your GCSE in physics, you know more physics
than our little Charles Cagle, even if he has been transmogrified
into CCRyder.
He is full of bull*** and insists on making a song about it. He has
spouted his verbal horse manure about 'electromagnetotoroids' for
years and years. In spite of very many attempts by readers to get him
to flesh out his nonsense with a bit of quantitative backup, he has
failed totally to do anything of the kind.
He will, of course bluster yet again, but he will not answer this note
of mine with some actual calculations.

If you want to get him really angry, you will ask him how many more
people he has recently conned into giving him money to build his
table-top nuclear power source.

Franz

Quantcast