Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Attacks Without Support!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on January 27, 2004 01:50:52 UTC

To the administrator: This is exactly the same as the post I just submitted; however, I think I omitted a subject. If that is a block on the system then you didn't get it; if you did get it, just egnore this post! Thank you -- Dick

To quote Bruce: "The blatant claim that Einstein made a mistake, a high school physics student wouldn't make, for modeling time as something that can be measured using an ideal clock is ridiculous."

He makes no argument as to why the claim is ridiculous. I guess it is his opinion that Einstein could not possibly have made a mistake!

Bruce again, "Stafford can model time anyway he chooses as can any author of a physical theory. Stafford's claim is that his theory bridges the gap between QM and GR. This is a bogus claim which anybody who has competently looked at his theory must conclude."

Once again, Bruce gives utterly no argument against what I say but merely classifies it with the term "bogus"! I guess he has sufficient standing to support that claim???

Bruce, "Stafford told me that we would come to realize that Newton's prediction that elliptical orbits don't precess is correct."

Now this is simply an outright lie. I have never made any such statement. Not to Bruce nor to anyone else. I have never made any suggestion that elliptical orbits don't precess. If you check equation 3.29 of Chapter 3 of my presentation,

any competent reader will discover that I derive a result exactly the same as Einstein with at extremely small correction (which is outside the ability of modern physics to check). My result is certainly not Newtonian!

Bruce again, "Folks who understand something about the purpose of physical theory realize this is a bunch of malarkey."

Mr. Bruce has put forth absolutely no arguments against what I have said but has rather just used name calling and lying as a means to discredit my work.

Don't worry about this so hard Bruce! The idiots in charge of what is "accepted physics" will not read my stuff anyway. You have nothing to worry about. Your religion is inviolate.

Have fun -- Dick

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins