Re: Fraud in Experimental and Theoretical Science


Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1139403269.614791.61340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1139353357.380656.210420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Well, I'm glad to see that I've proven *something* to you!
| > | Now, let's go ahead and expand our view, just as we did earlier.
| > | Remember when we talked about including the guidestrips and the
| > | febick-poles in our view?
| >
| > I am not going any farther with this joke of an experiment you
| > are pulling until you attempt to prove my board dropping mass
| > is not simultaneous.
| > Until you do such.. you have nothing to keep this experiment
| > you are doing alive.
|
| Since you've been so patient here, I'll go to that thread and respond
| to it *briefly*. (As I said before, though, I'm not interested in
| replicating the whole discussion in two places.)
|
| I'd like to point out, though, that I've given you the Ground reference
| in the ovibert example. I've not taken it away at all.

You have twisted your experiment so much it is not
worth the paper it is written on anymore.

And yet
1. You agreed that the procedure for measuring length was correct.
2. You agreed (and even helped specify) the clock synchronization
procedure.
3. You found no problem with the experimental verification of the
constancy of light.
4. You found no specific problem in the chain from where we started to
where we ended up.
5. You found no synchronization procedure that would enable all the
lightning bolts to be found to be "truly" simultaneous.
6. You found no frame of reference that is physically better than any
others where we could trust the simultaneity to be "true" or "actual".
7. You cannot explain the optical illusion that causes the "truth" to
be hidden.

So what are we to do with all that, spaceman?

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fraud in Experimental and Theoretical Science
    ... | Spaceman wrote: ... |> | Now, let's go ahead and expand our view, just as we did earlier. ... | I'd like to point out, though, that I've given you the Ground reference ... | in the ovibert example. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Fraud in Experimental and Theoretical Science
    ... Spaceman wrote: ... | Now, let's go ahead and expand our view, just as we did earlier. ... replicating the whole discussion in two places.) ... I'd like to point out, though, that I've given you the Ground reference ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dork matter, Bag bang, and the like.
    ... At last a "theory" from spaceman rather than his usual cackling ... When they expand to far away from each other they become ... Depends on how many make up an electron. ... You mean the gathering of bits. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dork matter, Bag bang, and the like.
    ... Won't it be funny when they find out that this so called "dark matter" ... At last a "theory" from spaceman rather than his usual cackling ... What causes the spin of the electron to have two and only two ... the bits expand, why does this make them less detectable? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Help a science teacher
    ... but it is not a restriction on how fast space itself can expand. ... How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during inflation? ... Spitshit, Spaceshit, Spaceman, or whatever you call the little ... crank dot net. ...
    (sci.physics)