On 6/5/2011 3:24 PM, BDK wrote:
In , says...

On 6/5/2011 12:21 PM, wrote:

...
You see, I actually read/understand them.

Velikovsky's 'World In Collision', really isn't a physics book...Is it?

--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

No, it is not a physics textbook . However -- some of Velikivsky's
ideas were found to be correct , several years after it's
publication . Real genius is seldom recognized during his/her
life . . .

Yeah, I can see that.

Akin to, "The real geniuses, here, won't be noticed during their lives ..."

Indeed, long after, gawd forbid, NEVER!

ROFLOL!

You never have to worry about that Johnny kOOk. People will still think
you're a raving whackjob years after you pass away, decades, centuries
later, if they read your posts, they will still see you for the kOOk
that you are.


I could almost believe that ... but, I wasn't tricked.

If you said it, it is obviously wrong.

Regards,
JS


--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On 2011-06-05 00:55, John Smith wrote:
On 6/4/2011 9:30 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Yes, but it is there that any similarity between you and I ends ...

You see, I actually read/understand them.

What are the titles/authors of your books? And how do they describe the
propagation of EM waves in a vacuum?


Well, I would not even expect anything worthwhile from an exchange with
you, you have already proven that ... your constant moves to move the
subject off topic and then to baffle us with your bull****, while off on
some tangent, is a prime example of this, and I have already pointed out.

I think most would point to John D. Kraus, and James Clerk Maxwell.

However, neither of these men truly understood the nature of the ether,
since we simply don't know what it is, so obviously, they used "fudge
factors" to work their way around that ...

You however, should be back in college,

Where they actually teach that EM waves do propagate in the vacuum of space.

On 6/6/2011 8:07 AM, Olrik wrote:

...
Where they actually teach that EM waves do propagate in the vacuum of
space.


Since both Kraus and Maxwell acknowledge an ether filling the vacuum, I
must be reading your text improperly, else you are writing nonsense?

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On 6/6/2011 8:07 AM, Olrik wrote:

...
I think most would point to John D. Kraus, and James Clerk Maxwell.

However, neither of these men truly understood the nature of the ether,
since we simply don't know what it is, so obviously, they used "fudge
factors" to work their way around that ...

You however, should be back in college,

Where they actually teach that EM waves do propagate in the vacuum of
space.

Although they didn't understand the true nature of Einsteins' ether,
both Kraus and Maxwell acknowledge an ether filling the vacuum, I must
be reading your text improperly, else you are writing nonsense, again?

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On 2011-06-06 11:51, John Smith wrote:
On 6/6/2011 8:07 AM, Olrik wrote:

...
I think most would point to John D. Kraus, and James Clerk Maxwell.

However, neither of these men truly understood the nature of the ether,
since we simply don't know what it is, so obviously, they used "fudge
factors" to work their way around that ...

You however, should be back in college,

Where they actually teach that EM waves do propagate in the vacuum of
space.

Although they didn't understand the true nature of Einsteins' ether,
both Kraus and Maxwell acknowledge an ether filling the vacuum, I must
be reading your text improperly, else you are writing nonsense, again?


I call Loki.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 09:58:31 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith :

On 6/5/2011 9:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

...
Yeah; it's called "college". Maybe if you'd attended and
taken a few physics classes you'd know what your quote
meant. Einstein also said (regarding QM) "God doesn't play
dice"; do you imagine that means he believed in an actual
deity?

Yes, I have noticed you use the same "Baffle With Bull****" tactics as
the children you associate with ... your thinking being, "I'll take the
topic away from hard physics into religion. Then, using strawman
arguments, I will attempt to use a persons personal beliefs to attack
their credibility. Now, once succeeding in that, I will "transfer" the
fact I appear correct over to the hard science -- effectively winning
the argument in hard science with less than truthful arguments."

Gee, where have we seen that before?

Below, in your avoidance of the question.

God doesn't play dice, obviously the rules and laws over our portion of
the universe are very fixed and rigid ... although in some far flung
corner they may differ ... only God would know, at this time.

But, as to Einstein, we have watched quacks hunt and attempt to
interpret, expand, etc. his words to allow various "fudge factors" which
he never intended ... usually with attempts to move discussions into
religious areas and begin debate on such books as the bible ... most
always the sign of the unethical and immature.

Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the
context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an
actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the
term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to
something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by
Michaelson and Morley, or not?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

On 6/6/2011 9:07 AM, Olrik wrote:
On 2011-06-06 11:51, John Smith wrote:
On 6/6/2011 8:07 AM, Olrik wrote:

...
I think most would point to John D. Kraus, and James Clerk Maxwell.

However, neither of these men truly understood the nature of the ether,
since we simply don't know what it is, so obviously, they used "fudge
factors" to work their way around that ...

You however, should be back in college,

Where they actually teach that EM waves do propagate in the vacuum of
space.

Although they didn't understand the true nature of Einsteins' ether,
both Kraus and Maxwell acknowledge an ether filling the vacuum, I must
be reading your text improperly, else you are writing nonsense, again?


I call Loki.


You go ahead, you have our permission ...

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 10:47:24 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith :

On 6/5/2011 9:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

...
Yeah; it's called "college". Maybe if you'd attended and
taken a few physics classes you'd know what your quote
meant. Einstein also said (regarding QM) "God doesn't play
dice"; do you imagine that means he believed in an actual
deity?

Your desire to constantly be in error is strong, young Skywalker ...

Three (al least) replies to a single out-of context quote;
must have struck a nerve.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

On 6/6/2011 9:57 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

...
Try re-reading the quotes you supplied; he did *not* believe
in any sort of personal deity.

Funny, all the real nuts usually appear to turn out atheists ...

And funny, all the morons who think they know what beliefs I
hold, since I never discuss them.

"He disagrees with my beliefs, therefore he's an atheist."

Your need to pick up most any comment/observation and point it directly
at yourself is very helpful in diagnosing your mental condition, thanks.

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On 6/6/2011 9:48 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 09:58:31 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John :

On 6/5/2011 9:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

...
Yeah; it's called "college". Maybe if you'd attended and
taken a few physics classes you'd know what your quote
meant. Einstein also said (regarding QM) "God doesn't play
dice"; do you imagine that means he believed in an actual
deity?

Yes, I have noticed you use the same "Baffle With Bull****" tactics as
the children you associate with ... your thinking being, "I'll take the
topic away from hard physics into religion. Then, using strawman
arguments, I will attempt to use a persons personal beliefs to attack
their credibility. Now, once succeeding in that, I will "transfer" the
fact I appear correct over to the hard science -- effectively winning
the argument in hard science with less than truthful arguments."

Gee, where have we seen that before?

Below, in your avoidance of the question.

God doesn't play dice, obviously the rules and laws over our portion of
the universe are very fixed and rigid ... although in some far flung
corner they may differ ... only God would know, at this time.

But, as to Einstein, we have watched quacks hunt and attempt to
interpret, expand, etc. his words to allow various "fudge factors" which
he never intended ... usually with attempts to move discussions into
religious areas and begin debate on such books as the bible ... most
always the sign of the unethical and immature.

Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the
context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an
actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the
term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to
something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by
Michaelson and Morley, or not?

I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent
creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but,
everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of
"thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ...

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry