Re: Rebuttal to Lesages Shadows (Part I)

From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 01/27/05 

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:08:11 GMT

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:%WKJd.6586$O55.2738@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:RnzJd.6303$VA5.3045@fe07.usenetserver.com...
> > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in
> > message news:v68Hd.6007$2R4.3650@news.cpqcorp.net...

> > > Is that all you have to say? How silly.
> >
> > It was sufficient. And history is not the major point of my rebuttal.
>
> It's also not your strongest asset apparently.

Of course it isn't. As history is not physics. And this is a physics
newsgroup.

But it was all you were willing (or able) to talk about.

> > > Someone starts talking about "some kind of radiation".
> > > And you bark "Radiation is something that is emitted from
> > > a matter source."
> > > If you would read this if it was written bu someone else,
> > > you would laugh yourself inside out. (Well, I hope)
> >
> > Sorry, Dinky.
>
> Sorry doesn't make the utter silliness of your transparent
> sophism go away.

LOL! Dinky learned a new word. Unfortunately, he still doesn't know what
'sophism' means.

> > > > And that is the inverse of the Le Sage model.
> > > > (See also modification Note 1, in changes post.)
> > > >
> > > > The second is the claim (in the last paragraph of this section)
that;
> > > > "Gradually the idea of force at a distance as a primary attribute of
> > > > matter became the dominant paradigm of physics ...". This claim
> > > > is made without any reference. And such a viewpoint never
> > > > dominated natural philosophy.
> > >
> > > That claim is made without any reference.
> >
> > True. However, one cannot reference a negative. Here's your chance,
Dinky,
> > to prove me wrong. Find several references from leading physics types
in
> > the 1800's, championing "force at a distance" as the way to go.

No response, I see. Quite expected.

> > > > Action at a distance was considered anathema to the materialistic
> > > > paradigm of the times.
> > >
> > > That claim is made without any reference.
> >
> > Yes. As was Shadow's. Again, feel free to show me wrong, Dinky.

No response, I see. Quite expected.

> > > > Such a view never dominated the scientific community.
> > >
> > > That claim is made without any reference.
> >
> > True. However, one cannot reference a negative. Here's your chance,
Dinky,
> > to prove me wrong. Find several references from leading physics types
in
> > the 1800's, championing "force at a distance" as the way to go.
>
> I'm not here to give you references.

I know. You are here simply to troll.

> I'm not here to
> convince you that you wrong. You do a very nice
> job of that yourself.
> I'm here to demonstrate what a silly and at the same
> time malicious sophist your are.
> You complain about the lack of references and then
> you assert one obvious silliness after the other - without
> any reference.

Obviously, Dinky, logic escapes you. One cannot have a reference for
something that did not happen.

> > > You call this a rebuttal?
> >
> > No, I call it an introduction to the history.
>
> You died somewhere at the end of the 19th century.
> You are a fossil with no feeling for history whatsoever.

Ooooohh! Sticks and stones. Yet Dinky has no support (either logical or
historical) for his view.

> > > This little diatribe of yours is a ranting pamphlet.
> > > What a waste of time.
> >
> > I see you stopped commenting as soon as you reached the physics.
>
> Discussing physics?
> With a frustrated engineer?
> Surely you must be joking.

The second question is superfluous for you, Dinky. ;)

Bye again. 

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Quantcast