Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Historical Perspective of Science History: Why Harshman, Broccoli, et al are mistaken concerning the neoTychoan System
46 views
Skip to first unread message
T Pagano
May 4, 2012, 11:37:53 AM5/4/12
to
1. Over the last two years I have challenged atheists (in particular)
to prove that the Earth moves or rotates or that the neoTychoan Model
has any fatal flaws. No proof has ever materialized.
2. Recently Broccoli (first) and then Harshman, Ernest Major, Isaak,
and Rogers asserted that the Earth could not possibly be located at
the Center of Mass in the neoTychoan Model because it would be
gravitationally accelerated from that location by the Sun. I have
shown at length that this position is a violation of Newton's Third
and Second Laws.
3. Neither Dr Dworetsky nor Dr Carlip ever made this ridiculous claim
and neither has any other secular scientist in history. Yet if their
ridiculous claim were true it would have easily, decisively, and
conclusively rendered GeoCentric models false.
4. Newton published his opus in July 1687 yet Newton didn't dispell
the possibility of Ptolemy's Model or Tycho Brahe's Models both of
which had the Earth at the Center.
5. In 1887 why did Michelson-Morley waste time and resources to
demonstrate that the Earth was moving through the Ether at approx 30
km/sec around the Sun if it was impossible for the Earth to be located
at the Center?
6. In 1937 why did Hubble lament the red shift of the stars that
could be interpreted as their revolving around a central Earth? And
why did he resort to accepting Einstein's ad hoc solution of a non
Euclidean geometry of curved space to avoid the possibility of a
center to the universe?
a. Hubble wrote, ". . .Such a condition would imply that
we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to
the ancient conception of a central Earth. . .This hypothesis cannot
be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last
resort in order to save the phenomenon. Therefore we disregard this
possibility. . .the unwelcome position of a favored location must be
avoided at all costs. ... . .such a favored position is intolerable.
.. . .Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the
horror of a unique position. ... . .must be compensated by spacial
curvature. There seems to be no other escape." (See Hubble's, "The
Observational Approach to Cosmology," Clarendon Press, 1937, pp
50,51,580)
b. If Hubble, Einstein and their atheist contemporaries
could have rendered a central Earth impossilble with Harhman, et al's
ridiculous claim it would have avoided the necessity of introducing
the ad hoc solution of non Euclidean, curved space. This ad hoc
solution caused more problems than it solved.
(1.) Hubble was forced to explain the red shift with
an expansion of the "curved" space. And the expanding universe had
some interesting problems of its own.
(2.) It then became quickly apparent that the
expansion could not be maintained given the known mass of the
universe. This caused the introduction of the ad hoc solution of cold
dark matter/energy which no one can find or explain. It also
necessitated that this cold dark matter/energy to have "repulsive"
properties.
c. Wouldn't Harshman, et al's solution been a whole lot
simpler and parsimonious than the contortions that the Greats of
Secular Science went to, to avoid a central Earth? Certainly but the
Greats of Science knew that Harshman, et al's solution was
simple-minded nonsense given Newton's Laws. The solution was never
raised because it violates the Third and Second Laws.
7. Finally why doesn't Harshman, et al pen a paper offering their
solution (which is contrary to Newton's Laws) to any peer reviewed
paper. Such a claim does not appear anywhere so it would be unique.
Harshman, et al, are finished, embarrassed, and defeated.
What remains is to seen now is if Broccoli, Harshman, Rogers,
Isaak, and Ernest Major have the intellectual honesty and integrity
demainded in the fields of science to come clean.
Regards,
T Pagano
to prove that the Earth moves or rotates or that the neoTychoan Model
has any fatal flaws. No proof has ever materialized.
2. Recently Broccoli (first) and then Harshman, Ernest Major, Isaak,
and Rogers asserted that the Earth could not possibly be located at
the Center of Mass in the neoTychoan Model because it would be
gravitationally accelerated from that location by the Sun. I have
shown at length that this position is a violation of Newton's Third
and Second Laws.
3. Neither Dr Dworetsky nor Dr Carlip ever made this ridiculous claim
and neither has any other secular scientist in history. Yet if their
ridiculous claim were true it would have easily, decisively, and
conclusively rendered GeoCentric models false.
4. Newton published his opus in July 1687 yet Newton didn't dispell
the possibility of Ptolemy's Model or Tycho Brahe's Models both of
which had the Earth at the Center.
5. In 1887 why did Michelson-Morley waste time and resources to
demonstrate that the Earth was moving through the Ether at approx 30
km/sec around the Sun if it was impossible for the Earth to be located
at the Center?
6. In 1937 why did Hubble lament the red shift of the stars that
could be interpreted as their revolving around a central Earth? And
why did he resort to accepting Einstein's ad hoc solution of a non
Euclidean geometry of curved space to avoid the possibility of a
center to the universe?
a. Hubble wrote, ". . .Such a condition would imply that
we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to
the ancient conception of a central Earth. . .This hypothesis cannot
be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last
resort in order to save the phenomenon. Therefore we disregard this
possibility. . .the unwelcome position of a favored location must be
avoided at all costs. ... . .such a favored position is intolerable.
.. . .Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the
horror of a unique position. ... . .must be compensated by spacial
curvature. There seems to be no other escape." (See Hubble's, "The
Observational Approach to Cosmology," Clarendon Press, 1937, pp
50,51,580)
b. If Hubble, Einstein and their atheist contemporaries
could have rendered a central Earth impossilble with Harhman, et al's
ridiculous claim it would have avoided the necessity of introducing
the ad hoc solution of non Euclidean, curved space. This ad hoc
solution caused more problems than it solved.
(1.) Hubble was forced to explain the red shift with
an expansion of the "curved" space. And the expanding universe had
some interesting problems of its own.
(2.) It then became quickly apparent that the
expansion could not be maintained given the known mass of the
universe. This caused the introduction of the ad hoc solution of cold
dark matter/energy which no one can find or explain. It also
necessitated that this cold dark matter/energy to have "repulsive"
properties.
c. Wouldn't Harshman, et al's solution been a whole lot
simpler and parsimonious than the contortions that the Greats of
Secular Science went to, to avoid a central Earth? Certainly but the
Greats of Science knew that Harshman, et al's solution was
simple-minded nonsense given Newton's Laws. The solution was never
raised because it violates the Third and Second Laws.
7. Finally why doesn't Harshman, et al pen a paper offering their
solution (which is contrary to Newton's Laws) to any peer reviewed
paper. Such a claim does not appear anywhere so it would be unique.
Harshman, et al, are finished, embarrassed, and defeated.
What remains is to seen now is if Broccoli, Harshman, Rogers,
Isaak, and Ernest Major have the intellectual honesty and integrity
demainded in the fields of science to come clean.
Regards,
T Pagano
Catpain 'Merca
May 4, 2012, 12:09:41 PM5/4/12
to
T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote in news:apagano-
24o7q7t1q552bvnr5...@4ax.com:
> 1. Over the last two years I have challenged atheists (in particular)
> to prove that the Earth moves or rotates or that the neoTychoan Model
> has any fatal flaws.
Tony, as far as anyone else in TO can see the neoTychoan Model exists only as
disjoint fragments in your head. The bits which you have decided to share
with the rest of the world have been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted. Your
inability to see this puts you in the same league as Ed Conrad and George
Hammond. If you think that their work(?) is flawed there may be hope for you
yet, given that their relationship to mainstream science is pretty much on a
par with yours.
DaveO
24o7q7t1q552bvnr5...@4ax.com:
> 1. Over the last two years I have challenged atheists (in particular)
> to prove that the Earth moves or rotates or that the neoTychoan Model
> has any fatal flaws.
disjoint fragments in your head. The bits which you have decided to share
with the rest of the world have been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted. Your
inability to see this puts you in the same league as Ed Conrad and George
Hammond. If you think that their work(?) is flawed there may be hope for you
yet, given that their relationship to mainstream science is pretty much on a
par with yours.
DaveO
T Pagano
May 4, 2012, 1:06:02 PM5/4/12
to
On Fri, 4 May 2012 16:09:41 +0000 (UTC), "Catpain 'Merca"
<catpai...@nospam.net> wrote:
>T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote in news:apagano-
>24o7q7t1q552bvnr5...@4ax.com:
>
>> 1. Over the last two years I have challenged atheists (in particular)
>> to prove that the Earth moves or rotates or that the neoTychoan Model
>> has any fatal flaws.
>
>Tony, as far as anyone else in TO can see the neoTychoan Model exists only as
>disjoint fragments in your head.
Even if this were true it isn't an argument against the neoTychoan
<catpai...@nospam.net> wrote:
>T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote in news:apagano-
>24o7q7t1q552bvnr5...@4ax.com:
>
>> 1. Over the last two years I have challenged atheists (in particular)
>> to prove that the Earth moves or rotates or that the neoTychoan Model
>> has any fatal flaws.
>
>Tony, as far as anyone else in TO can see the neoTychoan Model exists only as
>disjoint fragments in your head.
Model. You do understand the nature of deductive arguments; don't
you?
> The bits which you have decided to share
>with the rest of the world have been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted.
Perhaps he refers to the nonsense offered by Harshman, Friar Broccoli,
Isaak, Rogers and Ernest Major that the Sun would apply a net force to
the Center of Mass of an isolated system. This is a violation of
Newton's Third Law of Motion.
If this false claim were true why didn't Newton make it in his opus
published in 1687? And after 1687 why wasn't the geoCentric model
put to rest for good with this position? In fact this nonsensical
claim has never been published by anyone else in history. Can DaveO
find any scientist in history criticizing the geoCentric model with
this nonsense?
> Your
>inability to see this puts you in the same league as Ed Conrad and George
>Hammond.
been ignored and not refuted. Perhaps DaveO is unaware of the
difference between the two. Or perhaps DaveO can prove that Conrad's
position is false.
> If you think that their work(?) is flawed there may be hope for you
problem: Everyone claims that flaws exist but no one can actually
produce any.
>yet, given that their relationship to mainstream science is pretty much on a
>par with yours.
>
>DaveO
truth. Throughout history scientific consensus has been about as
fleeting as continuing victory in battle for nations. Furthermore
according to atheists it is the hallmark of science that its positions
about nature are self correcting. How can it be self correcting if
the consensus is never challenged? DaveO never says.
Regards,
T Pagano
Ernest Major
May 4, 2012, 1:24:23 PM5/4/12
to
In message <apagano-5u08q75shdt49...@4ax.com>, T
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
libels. You may not understand the difference between the centre of mass
and a body instantaneously at the centre of mass, but you should at
least be capable of comprehending that we do draw such a distinction.
--
alias Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>On Fri, 4 May 2012 16:09:41 +0000 (UTC), "Catpain 'Merca"
><catpai...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote in news:apagano-
>>24o7q7t1q552bvnr5...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> 1. Over the last two years I have challenged atheists (in particular)
>>> to prove that the Earth moves or rotates or that the neoTychoan Model
>>> has any fatal flaws.
>>
>>Tony, as far as anyone else in TO can see the neoTychoan Model exists only as
>>disjoint fragments in your head.
>
>Even if this were true it isn't an argument against the neoTychoan
>Model. You do understand the nature of deductive arguments; don't
>you?
>
>
>
>> The bits which you have decided to share
>>with the rest of the world have been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted.
>
>As is typical, DaveO doesn't produce the refutations.
>
>Perhaps he refers to the nonsense offered by Harshman, Friar Broccoli,
>Isaak, Rogers and Ernest Major that the Sun would apply a net force to
>the Center of Mass of an isolated system.
It would be better for your moral reputation if your refrained from such
><catpai...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote in news:apagano-
>>24o7q7t1q552bvnr5...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> 1. Over the last two years I have challenged atheists (in particular)
>>> to prove that the Earth moves or rotates or that the neoTychoan Model
>>> has any fatal flaws.
>>
>>Tony, as far as anyone else in TO can see the neoTychoan Model exists only as
>>disjoint fragments in your head.
>
>Even if this were true it isn't an argument against the neoTychoan
>Model. You do understand the nature of deductive arguments; don't
>you?
>
>
>
>> The bits which you have decided to share
>>with the rest of the world have been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted.
>
>As is typical, DaveO doesn't produce the refutations.
>
>Perhaps he refers to the nonsense offered by Harshman, Friar Broccoli,
>Isaak, Rogers and Ernest Major that the Sun would apply a net force to
>the Center of Mass of an isolated system.
libels. You may not understand the difference between the centre of mass
and a body instantaneously at the centre of mass, but you should at
least be capable of comprehending that we do draw such a distinction.
--
alias Ernest Major
UC
May 4, 2012, 1:49:42 PM5/4/12
to
On May 4, 12:09 pm, "Catpain 'Merca" <catpainme...@nospam.net> wrote:
> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote in news:apagano-
> 24o7q7t1q552bvnr5bo9s5c9js0alap...@4ax.com:
Ever hear of Occam's razor?
> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote in news:apagano-
> 24o7q7t1q552bvnr5bo9s5c9js0alap...@4ax.com:
Michael Siemon
May 4, 2012, 1:57:20 PM5/4/12
to
In article <qaK1gBlH...@meden.invalid>,
By all evidence, Tony is _incapable_ of comprehending much of anything,
other than cook-book patterns of chop-logic sophistry. Since doing that
in math [the only applicable context for reasoning in this realm] would
mark him instantly as an incompetent buffoon, he relies on verbal
confusions -- and a refusal to actually address _any_ argument.
other than cook-book patterns of chop-logic sophistry. Since doing that
in math [the only applicable context for reasoning in this realm] would
mark him instantly as an incompetent buffoon, he relies on verbal
confusions -- and a refusal to actually address _any_ argument.
RAM
May 4, 2012, 2:03:49 PM5/4/12
to
DaveO
May 4, 2012, 2:11:04 PM5/4/12
to
T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote in
news:apagano-5u08q75shdt49...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 16:09:41 +0000 (UTC), "Catpain 'Merca"
> <catpai...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote in news:apagano-
>>24o7q7t1q552bvnr5...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> 1. Over the last two years I have challenged atheists (in particular)
>>> to prove that the Earth moves or rotates or that the neoTychoan Model
>>> has any fatal flaws.
>>
>>Tony, as far as anyone else in TO can see the neoTychoan Model exists
>>only as disjoint fragments in your head.
>
> Even if this were true it isn't an argument against the neoTychoan
> Model. You do understand the nature of deductive arguments; don't
> you?
the disjoint snippets that you have presented indicates that you are
insane.
>
>
>
>> The bits which you have decided to share
>>with the rest of the world have been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted.
>
> As is typical, DaveO doesn't produce the refutations.
You ignore refutations. There is no point in repeating them here.
>
>
>> The bits which you have decided to share
>>with the rest of the world have been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted.
>
> As is typical, DaveO doesn't produce the refutations.
Any TO reader is welcome to google red shift, supraluminal, or
geostationary in this newsgroup to find any number of times that you have
been successfully refuted. Your tactic when thus confronted is to run
away and start another thread.
>
> Perhaps he refers to the nonsense offered by Harshman, Friar Broccoli,
> Isaak, Rogers and Ernest Major that the Sun would apply a net force to
> the Center of Mass of an isolated system. This is a violation of
> Newton's Third Law of Motion.
It's also your strawman. The good Friar or Ernest Major are welcome to
> Perhaps he refers to the nonsense offered by Harshman, Friar Broccoli,
> Isaak, Rogers and Ernest Major that the Sun would apply a net force to
> the Center of Mass of an isolated system. This is a violation of
> Newton's Third Law of Motion.
correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> If this false claim were true why didn't Newton make it in his opus
> published in 1687? And after 1687 why wasn't the geoCentric model
> put to rest for good with this position? In fact this nonsensical
> claim has never been published by anyone else in history. Can DaveO
> find any scientist in history criticizing the geoCentric model with
> this nonsense?
>
>
>>Your inability to see this puts you in the same league as Ed Conrad and
>>George Hammond.
>
> Never heard of George Hammond, but I'm generally aware that Conrad has
> been ignored and not refuted. Perhaps DaveO is unaware of the
> difference between the two. Or perhaps DaveO can prove that Conrad's
> position is false.
Good grief. Tony, you're a loon. Do I really have to argue the case that
> If this false claim were true why didn't Newton make it in his opus
> published in 1687? And after 1687 why wasn't the geoCentric model
> put to rest for good with this position? In fact this nonsensical
> claim has never been published by anyone else in history. Can DaveO
> find any scientist in history criticizing the geoCentric model with
> this nonsense?
>
>
>>Your inability to see this puts you in the same league as Ed Conrad and
>>George Hammond.
>
> Never heard of George Hammond, but I'm generally aware that Conrad has
> been ignored and not refuted. Perhaps DaveO is unaware of the
> difference between the two. Or perhaps DaveO can prove that Conrad's
> position is false.
the manned lunar landings were not faked?
>> If you think that their work(?) is flawed there may be hope for you
>
> Again, DaveO never produces any actual flaws. And this is the
> problem: Everyone claims that flaws exist but no one can actually
> produce any.
Your posting history speaks for itself.
> yet, given that their relationship to mainstream science is pretty much
> on a par with yours.
>
>DaveO
> Unfortunately the consensus of the mainstream is not an indicator of
> truth. Throughout history scientific consensus has been about as
> fleeting as continuing victory in battle for nations.
of subsequent evidence and theories.
> Furthermore according to atheists it is the hallmark of science that its
> positions about nature are self correcting.
Furthermore according to scientists it is the hallmark of science that its
positions about nature are self correcting.
How can it be self correcting if the consensus is never challenged? DaveO
never says.
Nor would I, that's your second strawman in a single post. Challenge the
How can it be self correcting if the consensus is never challenged? DaveO
never says.
concensus by all means but not by donning a pink tutu and tinfoil hat then
running up to a telescope and screaming over and over "Listen to me the
sun is square!". Such a method is not likely to be a productive way of
challenging the consensus. Your method appears slightly worse.
DaveO
RAM
May 4, 2012, 2:17:58 PM5/4/12
to
On May 4, 12:57 pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <qaK1gBlHDBpPF...@meden.invalid>,
> Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message <apagano-5u08q75shdt49jhntls0fi78r8fv0fg...@4ax.com>, T
> > Pagano <not.va...@address.net> writes
engage in any empirical documentation of his claims - period. The
"incompetent buffoon" attribute of the Pagano persona is a minor one
when compared to his "liar and kook" attributes. The comparisons to
the "kooks" George Hammond and Ed Conrad ring true and his lying and
plagiarism reveal him to be in sum a morally challenged incompetent
buffoon and kook. The more you see of Pagano the less substance there
is.
> In article <qaK1gBlHDBpPF...@meden.invalid>,
> Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message <apagano-5u08q75shdt49jhntls0fi78r8fv0fg...@4ax.com>, T
> > Pagano <not.va...@address.net> writes
> > >On Fri, 4 May 2012 16:09:41 +0000 (UTC), "Catpain 'Merca"
> > ><catpainme...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > >>T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote in news:apagano-
> > >>24o7q7t1q552bvnr5bo9s5c9js0alap...@4ax.com:
>
>
> > >>T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote in news:apagano-
> > >>24o7q7t1q552bvnr5bo9s5c9js0alap...@4ax.com:
>
> > >>> 1. Over the last two years I have challenged atheists (in particular)
> > >>> to prove that the Earth moves or rotates or that the neoTychoan Model
> > >>> has any fatal flaws.
>
> > >>Tony, as far as anyone else in TO can see the neoTychoan Model exists only
> > >>as
> > >>disjoint fragments in your head.
>
> > >Even if this were true it isn't an argument against the neoTychoan
> > >Model. You do understand the nature of deductive arguments; don't
> > >you?
>
> > >> The bits which you have decided to share
> > >>with the rest of the world have been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted.
>
> > >As is typical, DaveO doesn't produce the refutations.
>
> > >Perhaps he refers to the nonsense offered by Harshman, Friar Broccoli,
> > >Isaak, Rogers and Ernest Major that the Sun would apply a net force to
> > >the Center of Mass of an isolated system.
>
> > It would be better for your moral reputation if your refrained from such
> > libels. You may not understand the difference between the centre of mass
> > and a body instantaneously at the centre of mass, but you should at
> > least be capable of comprehending that we do draw such a distinction.
>
> By all evidence, Tony is _incapable_ of comprehending much of anything,
> other than cook-book patterns of chop-logic sophistry. Since doing that
> in math [the only applicable context for reasoning in this realm] would
> mark him instantly as an incompetent buffoon, he relies on verbal
> confusions -- and a refusal to actually address _any_ argument.
Tony reveals himself to be an incompetent buffoon for refusing to
> > >>> to prove that the Earth moves or rotates or that the neoTychoan Model
> > >>> has any fatal flaws.
>
> > >>Tony, as far as anyone else in TO can see the neoTychoan Model exists only
> > >>as
> > >>disjoint fragments in your head.
>
> > >Even if this were true it isn't an argument against the neoTychoan
> > >Model. You do understand the nature of deductive arguments; don't
> > >you?
>
> > >> The bits which you have decided to share
> > >>with the rest of the world have been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted.
>
> > >As is typical, DaveO doesn't produce the refutations.
>
> > >Perhaps he refers to the nonsense offered by Harshman, Friar Broccoli,
> > >Isaak, Rogers and Ernest Major that the Sun would apply a net force to
> > >the Center of Mass of an isolated system.
>
> > It would be better for your moral reputation if your refrained from such
> > libels. You may not understand the difference between the centre of mass
> > and a body instantaneously at the centre of mass, but you should at
> > least be capable of comprehending that we do draw such a distinction.
>
> By all evidence, Tony is _incapable_ of comprehending much of anything,
> other than cook-book patterns of chop-logic sophistry. Since doing that
> in math [the only applicable context for reasoning in this realm] would
> mark him instantly as an incompetent buffoon, he relies on verbal
> confusions -- and a refusal to actually address _any_ argument.
engage in any empirical documentation of his claims - period. The
"incompetent buffoon" attribute of the Pagano persona is a minor one
when compared to his "liar and kook" attributes. The comparisons to
the "kooks" George Hammond and Ed Conrad ring true and his lying and
plagiarism reveal him to be in sum a morally challenged incompetent
buffoon and kook. The more you see of Pagano the less substance there
is.
Mark Isaak
May 4, 2012, 4:51:11 PM5/4/12
to
On 5/4/12 8:37 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>[regurgipost]
Still no replies to the actual criticisms in the actual threads where
they appear. That is because Pagano knows that he *cannot* reply. He
can only bluster again with the same old, old, old, old bluster.
So, Tony, if the center of mass of the universe is on earth, just a foot
or two away from you, and it happens to coincide with a peanut that is
sitting there, could Newtonian forces such as those in play when you
move your arm allow you to pick up the peanut and toss it about? You
claim it is impossible, but I think I could do it.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
>[regurgipost]
Still no replies to the actual criticisms in the actual threads where
they appear. That is because Pagano knows that he *cannot* reply. He
can only bluster again with the same old, old, old, old bluster.
So, Tony, if the center of mass of the universe is on earth, just a foot
or two away from you, and it happens to coincide with a peanut that is
sitting there, could Newtonian forces such as those in play when you
move your arm allow you to pick up the peanut and toss it about? You
claim it is impossible, but I think I could do it.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Buchanan
May 4, 2012, 5:19:51 PM5/4/12
to
Mark
T Pagano
May 4, 2012, 7:45:46 PM5/4/12
to
On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:51:11 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>On 5/4/12 8:37 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>[regurgipost]
>
>Still no replies to the actual criticisms in the actual threads where
>they appear. That is because Pagano knows that he *cannot* reply. He
>can only bluster again with the same old, old, old, old bluster.
I get to those posts that need replies; otherwise my new threads
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>On 5/4/12 8:37 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>[regurgipost]
>
>Still no replies to the actual criticisms in the actual threads where
>they appear. That is because Pagano knows that he *cannot* reply. He
>can only bluster again with the same old, old, old, old bluster.
address almost everything.
>
>So, Tony, if the center of mass of the universe is on earth, just a foot
>or two away from you, and it happens to coincide with a peanut that is
>sitting there, could Newtonian forces such as those in play when you
>move your arm allow you to pick up the peanut and toss it about? You
>claim it is impossible, but I think I could do it.
though it has nothing to do with the Third Law; it is strictly a
Second Law problem.
1. For all practical (and even theoretical) purposes the peanut as
described in the experiment cannot be distinquised from the surface of
the Earth---that is, it is part of the surface. Isaak is not likely
to be able to move the surface of the Earth away from the COM.
Furthermore unless an external force was appled to the Earth giving it
a velocity around the COM the Earth iwould be accelerated by a
gravitational force proportional to the mass of the system towards the
COM until the center of the Earth coincided with the imaginary COM.
2. But lets say that instead of the Earth at the COM the peanut is
located there. If I attached a cable to the peanut from my rocket
ship would I be able to accelerate it. Doubtful, since I would have
to overcome a gravitational force proportional to the mass of the
universe.
3. Let's say the Earth is revolving around the COM with the Peanut
colocated at the COM. If we attached a cable from the Earth to the
peanut could we pull the peanut out of its location. Again doubtful;
any force we applied would be more than balanced by the gravitational
force proportional to the mass of the universe.
Regards,
T Pagano
*Hemidactylus*
May 4, 2012, 10:12:57 PM5/4/12
to
system and how that makes geocentrism and you just plain frickin' silly?
Kant? Laplace? Ringing a bell?
How long after the big bang did our *solar* system form?
That last question pretty much set your controls for the heart of the sun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5_0iZQ-TuA
[that's something I prefer to listen to instead of your deluded BS]
--
*Hemidactylus*
gdgu...@gmail.com
May 4, 2012, 10:50:18 PM5/4/12
to
On May 4, 7:45 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:51:11 -0700, Mark Isaak
>
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >On 5/4/12 8:37 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> >>[regurgipost]
>
> >Still no replies to the actual criticisms in the actual threads where
> >they appear. That is because Pagano knows that he *cannot* reply. He
> >can only bluster again with the same old, old, old, old bluster.
>
> I get to those posts that need replies; otherwise my new threads
> address almost everything.
>
Except equations? What about that pesky Law of Universal Gravitation?
> On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:51:11 -0700, Mark Isaak
>
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >On 5/4/12 8:37 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> >>[regurgipost]
>
> >Still no replies to the actual criticisms in the actual threads where
> >they appear. That is because Pagano knows that he *cannot* reply. He
> >can only bluster again with the same old, old, old, old bluster.
>
> I get to those posts that need replies; otherwise my new threads
> address almost everything.
>
>
> >So, Tony, if the center of mass of the universe is on earth, just a foot
> >or two away from you, and it happens to coincide with a peanut that is
> >sitting there, could Newtonian forces such as those in play when you
> >move your arm allow you to pick up the peanut and toss it about? You
> >claim it is impossible, but I think I could do it.
>
> Actually this is an interesting and illustrative thought experiment
> though it has nothing to do with the Third Law; it is strictly a
> Second Law problem.
>
> 1. For all practical (and even theoretical) purposes the peanut as
> described in the experiment cannot be distinquised from the surface of
> the Earth---that is, it is part of the surface. Isaak is not likely
> to be able to move the surface of the Earth away from the COM.
> Furthermore unless an external force was appled to the Earth giving it
> a velocity around the COM the Earth iwould be accelerated by a
> gravitational force proportional to the mass of the system towards the
> COM until the center of the Earth coincided with the imaginary COM.
>
> 2. But lets say that instead of the Earth at the COM the peanut is
> located there. If I attached a cable to the peanut from my rocket
> ship would I be able to accelerate it. Doubtful, since I would have
> to overcome a gravitational force proportional to the mass of the
> universe.
are thousands, millions and billions of light years away, strong
enough to hold a peanut against the power of a rocket at the CoM, yet
it diminishes within a mere 4000 miles to a force weak enough to allow
me to throw peanuts into the air with ease? What do you suppose could
account for a gradient as steep as that?
> 3. Let's say the Earth is revolving around the COM with the Peanut
> colocated at the COM. If we attached a cable from the Earth to the
> peanut could we pull the peanut out of its location. Again doubtful;
> any force we applied would be more than balanced by the gravitational
> force proportional to the mass of the universe.
of the Earth is so great that even a rocket could not dislodge a
peanut, at the Earth's surface it is weak enough not to crush us (not
to mention the Earth), at 22,300 miles altitude above the equator it
diminishes to zero (in order to allow geostationary satellites to
remain motionless) and at 93 million miles it is again strong enough
to pull an object 300 thousand times the mass of the Earth into a 1AU
orbit. Tricky, that gravity.
John Harshman
May 4, 2012, 11:42:23 PM5/4/12
to
T Pagano wrote:
in which Tony defends Ed Conrad:
in which Tony defends Ed Conrad:
John Harshman
May 5, 2012, 12:03:42 AM5/5/12
to
peanut. We are blessed.
Bob Casanova
May 5, 2012, 1:56:53 PM5/5/12
to
On Fri, 04 May 2012 20:42:23 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
Apparently Tony came late to the Coal Wars; Ed was
decisively refuted at least 4 or 5 years ago by at least
one professional archaeologists who examined Ed's
"evidence".
Of course, that didn't "prove" Ed was wrong, just that Ed's
evidence didn't show what Ed claimed (Haversian canals,
IIRC). But aside from Tony, mathematicians and distilleries,
who uses "proof"?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
decisively refuted at least 4 or 5 years ago by at least
one professional archaeologists who examined Ed's
"evidence".
Of course, that didn't "prove" Ed was wrong, just that Ed's
evidence didn't show what Ed claimed (Haversian canals,
IIRC). But aside from Tony, mathematicians and distilleries,
who uses "proof"?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Free Lunch
May 5, 2012, 2:10:24 PM5/5/12
to
On Sat, 05 May 2012 10:56:53 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote
in talk.origins:
>On Fri, 04 May 2012 20:42:23 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
><jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>
>>T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>in which Tony defends Ed Conrad:
>>
>>> Never heard of George Hammond, but I'm generally aware that Conrad has
>>> been ignored and not refuted. Perhaps DaveO is unaware of the
>>> difference between the two. Or perhaps DaveO can prove that Conrad's
>>> position is false.
>
>Apparently Tony came late to the Coal Wars; Ed was
>decisively refuted at least 4 or 5 years ago by at least
>one professional archaeologists who examined Ed's
>"evidence".
More like "more than ten years ago" by Saint Andrew. I don't think I
have ever seen anyone display more patience with anyone than Dr. MacRae
showed with Ed. Everyone (other than Ed) learned a lot from that
discussion.
in talk.origins:
>On Fri, 04 May 2012 20:42:23 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
><jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>
>>T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>in which Tony defends Ed Conrad:
>>
>>> Never heard of George Hammond, but I'm generally aware that Conrad has
>>> been ignored and not refuted. Perhaps DaveO is unaware of the
>>> difference between the two. Or perhaps DaveO can prove that Conrad's
>>> position is false.
>
>Apparently Tony came late to the Coal Wars; Ed was
>decisively refuted at least 4 or 5 years ago by at least
>one professional archaeologists who examined Ed's
>"evidence".
have ever seen anyone display more patience with anyone than Dr. MacRae
showed with Ed. Everyone (other than Ed) learned a lot from that
discussion.
Bob Casanova
May 5, 2012, 2:27:50 PM5/5/12
to
On Fri, 04 May 2012 21:03:42 -0700, the following appeared
Motion is impossible! All hail Tony "Zeno" Pagano!
Mark Isaak
May 5, 2012, 8:04:29 PM5/5/12
to
On 5/4/12 4:45 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:51:11 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/4/12 8:37 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>> [regurgipost]
>>
> On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:51:11 -0700, Mark Isaak
> <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/4/12 8:37 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>> [regurgipost]
>>
>> So, Tony, if the center of mass of the universe is on earth, just a foot
>> or two away from you, and it happens to coincide with a peanut that is
>> sitting there, could Newtonian forces such as those in play when you
>> move your arm allow you to pick up the peanut and toss it about? You
>> claim it is impossible, but I think I could do it.
>
> Actually this is an interesting and illustrative thought experiment
> though it has nothing to do with the Third Law; it is strictly a
> Second Law problem.
Actually all three laws come into play.
>> or two away from you, and it happens to coincide with a peanut that is
>> sitting there, could Newtonian forces such as those in play when you
>> move your arm allow you to pick up the peanut and toss it about? You
>> claim it is impossible, but I think I could do it.
>
> Actually this is an interesting and illustrative thought experiment
> though it has nothing to do with the Third Law; it is strictly a
> Second Law problem.
> 1. For all practical (and even theoretical) purposes the peanut as
> described in the experiment cannot be distinquised from the surface of
> the Earth---that is, it is part of the surface.
from the surface of the earth. There is a bag of peanuts on a table by
my desk. The surface of the earth is underneath the floor.
> Isaak is not likely
> to be able to move the surface of the Earth away from the COM.
that less than a week ago. With a shovel, I spread around a pile of
dirt (part of the surface of the earth). Since I spread it in all
directions, some of it must have gone away from the COM.
> Furthermore unless an external force was applied to the Earth giving it
> a velocity around the COM the Earth would be accelerated by a
> gravitational force proportional to the mass of the system towards the
> COM until the center of the Earth coincided with the imaginary COM.
Why the Earth and not the peanut?
> COM until the center of the Earth coincided with the imaginary COM.
> 2. But lets say that instead of the Earth at the COM the peanut is
> located there. If I attached a cable to the peanut from my rocket
> ship would I be able to accelerate it. Doubtful, since I would have
> to overcome a gravitational force proportional to the mass of the
> universe.
>
> 3. Let's say the Earth is revolving around the COM with the Peanut
> colocated at the COM. If we attached a cable from the Earth to the
> peanut could we pull the peanut out of its location. Again doubtful;
> any force we applied would be more than balanced by the gravitational
> force proportional to the mass of the universe.
Could you go into a little more detail on the mechanism? A center of
mass is an abstraction, a purely mathematical construct. How could such
a purely abstract quality immobilize peanuts? When the peanut is a
centimeter away from the COM, is it free to move again?
jillery
May 6, 2012, 3:35:12 AM5/6/12
to
Bob Casanova
May 6, 2012, 2:36:35 PM5/6/12
to
On Sat, 05 May 2012 13:10:24 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Free Lunch
<lu...@nofreelunch.us>:
>On Sat, 05 May 2012 10:56:53 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote
>in talk.origins:
>
>>On Fri, 04 May 2012 20:42:23 -0700, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>><jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>>
>>>T Pagano wrote:
>>>
>>>in which Tony defends Ed Conrad:
>>>
>>>> Never heard of George Hammond, but I'm generally aware that Conrad has
>>>> been ignored and not refuted. Perhaps DaveO is unaware of the
>>>> difference between the two. Or perhaps DaveO can prove that Conrad's
>>>> position is false.
>>
>>Apparently Tony came late to the Coal Wars; Ed was
>>decisively refuted at least 4 or 5 years ago by at least
>>one professional archaeologists who examined Ed's
>>"evidence".
>
>More like "more than ten years ago" by Saint Andrew. I don't think I
>have ever seen anyone display more patience with anyone than Dr. MacRae
>showed with Ed. Everyone (other than Ed) learned a lot from that
>discussion.
That was it; thanks! At my age I'm fortunate to get the
right decade...and I *did* say "at least 4 or 5 years". ;-)
>>Of course, that didn't "prove" Ed was wrong, just that Ed's
>>evidence didn't show what Ed claimed (Haversian canals,
>>IIRC). But aside from Tony, mathematicians and distilleries,
>>who uses "proof"?
in talk.origins, posted by Free Lunch
<lu...@nofreelunch.us>:
>On Sat, 05 May 2012 10:56:53 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote
>in talk.origins:
>
>>On Fri, 04 May 2012 20:42:23 -0700, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>><jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>>
>>>T Pagano wrote:
>>>
>>>in which Tony defends Ed Conrad:
>>>
>>>> Never heard of George Hammond, but I'm generally aware that Conrad has
>>>> been ignored and not refuted. Perhaps DaveO is unaware of the
>>>> difference between the two. Or perhaps DaveO can prove that Conrad's
>>>> position is false.
>>
>>Apparently Tony came late to the Coal Wars; Ed was
>>decisively refuted at least 4 or 5 years ago by at least
>>one professional archaeologists who examined Ed's
>>"evidence".
>
>More like "more than ten years ago" by Saint Andrew. I don't think I
>have ever seen anyone display more patience with anyone than Dr. MacRae
>showed with Ed. Everyone (other than Ed) learned a lot from that
>discussion.
right decade...and I *did* say "at least 4 or 5 years". ;-)
>>Of course, that didn't "prove" Ed was wrong, just that Ed's
>>evidence didn't show what Ed claimed (Haversian canals,
>>IIRC). But aside from Tony, mathematicians and distilleries,
>>who uses "proof"?
Mitchell Coffey
May 6, 2012, 3:53:47 PM5/6/12
to
In the Prove to Me Those Pieces of Coal Weren't Fossilized Human
Penises category:
> Never heard of George Hammond, but I'm generally aware that Conrad has
> been ignored and not refuted. Perhaps DaveO is unaware of the
> difference between the two. Or perhaps DaveO can prove that Conrad's
> position is false.
Mitchell Coffey
Penises category:
> Never heard of George Hammond, but I'm generally aware that Conrad has
> been ignored and not refuted. Perhaps DaveO is unaware of the
> difference between the two. Or perhaps DaveO can prove that Conrad's
> position is false.
John Stockwell
May 7, 2012, 1:50:00 PM5/7/12
to
On Friday, May 4, 2012 9:37:53 AM UTC-6, T Pagano wrote:
> 1. Over the last two years I have challenged atheists (in particular)
> to prove that the Earth moves or rotates or that the neoTychoan Model
> has any fatal flaws. No proof has ever materialized.
From the vantage point of parsimony you have two choices
> 1. Over the last two years I have challenged atheists (in particular)
> to prove that the Earth moves or rotates or that the neoTychoan Model
> has any fatal flaws. No proof has ever materialized.
1) have the entire universe out as far as astronomers can see
be rotating in lock step around the axis of a celestial sphere,
requiring an unknown mechanism for holding all of the celestial objects
in exact lock step, with no differential motion. Recall also that the
length of day varies quite a bit during the course of a year, so not
only do all of the objects have to orbit the axis of the celestial
sphere, they have to all experience the same variations in rotation rate.
2) have the earth rotate.
Choice 2) is the obvious correct answer. It is up to those who favor
choice 1) to show why that is a preferable model of the universe.
Since Pagano presented no mathematics, he is just blowing smoke.
>
> 2. Recently Broccoli (first) and then Harshman, Ernest Major, Isaak,
> and Rogers asserted that the Earth could not possibly be located at
> the Center of Mass in the neoTychoan Model because it would be
> gravitationally accelerated from that location by the Sun. I have
> shown at length that this position is a violation of Newton's Third
> and Second Laws.
in the physics of Newton, there is no gravitational force whatsoever inside
of a symmetric spherical shell. Since you were arguing from a Newtonian
model, there is no "force" to hold the Sun in orbit around the earth.
Note that you have two very different assumed forces in your model: The
gravitational force which acts as an inverse square law, and under which
it is obvious that the planets, including the earth orbit the barycenter
of the solar system. To try to save stationary earth model, you assert
(without calculation or evidence) that frame dragging of the universe is
somehow strong enough to make everything go around the earth daily, but
weak enough that coriolis-like force that is predicted to act radially
by Thirring's calculations is weak enough not to rip the earth apart.
At most, what you have is an equivalence of coordinate systems. Nothing more.
>
> 3. Neither Dr Dworetsky nor Dr Carlip ever made this ridiculous claim
> and neither has any other secular scientist in history. Yet if their
> ridiculous claim were true it would have easily, decisively, and
> conclusively rendered GeoCentric models false.
moves when the objects move.
>
> 4. Newton published his opus in July 1687 yet Newton didn't dispell
> the possibility of Ptolemy's Model or Tycho Brahe's Models both of
> which had the Earth at the Center.
the ephemerides produced using Ptolemaic methods. The reason Tycho Brahe
got in the star mapping business was because the ephemerides were so bad
that as a college student Brahe would make naked eye observations with
paper instruments of his own construction, and could easily measure the
errors in predicted positions of the planets.
>
> 5. In 1887 why did Michelson-Morley waste time and resources to
> demonstrate that the Earth was moving through the Ether at approx 30
> km/sec around the Sun if it was impossible for the Earth to be located
> at the Center?
1887. The prevailing notion of the time was that light was an elastic wave
traveling through a continuous medium. If that model were correct, then
the earth at some time in its orbit would be moving with respect to the
"ether".
Yes, the solar system is in motion. William Herschel is credited
with that discovery in 1783. He measured the proper motion of
a number of stars and showed that their proper motion vectors converged
on a point in space which he (correctly) interpreted as the direction
that the solar system is moving from.
Of course, spectrascopic measurments of the radial velocities of stars
since that time has refined this notion.
So, in your NeoTychoan model, you have to have stars approaching and
receding from your presumed stationary earth.
>
> 6. In 1937 why did Hubble lament the red shift of the stars that
> could be interpreted as their revolving around a central Earth? And
> why did he resort to accepting Einstein's ad hoc solution of a non
> Euclidean geometry of curved space to avoid the possibility of a
> center to the universe?
incidentally, you draw on with abandon to explain things like geosyncronous
satellites).
Hubble's law is based on a calibration of red shift with standard candle
methods, so the notion works. The red shift- distance relation holds up.
Nothing about the galaxies "revolving around the earth" though. That
is just your claptrap.
>
> a. Hubble wrote, ". . .Such a condition would imply that
> we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to
> the ancient conception of a central Earth. . .This hypothesis cannot
> be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last
> resort in order to save the phenomenon. Therefore we disregard this
> possibility. . .the unwelcome position of a favored location must be
> avoided at all costs. ... . .such a favored position is intolerable.
> .. . .Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the
> horror of a unique position. ... . .must be compensated by spacial
> curvature. There seems to be no other escape." (See Hubble's, "The
> Observational Approach to Cosmology," Clarendon Press, 1937, pp
> 50,51,580)
source to see what it really said.
From
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble3_2.html
" The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.
A thinning out would be readily explained in either of two ways. The first is space absorption. If the nebulae were seen through a tenuous haze, they would fade away faster than could be accounted for by distance and red-shifts alone, and the distribution, even if it were uniform, would appear to thin out. The second explanation is a super-system of nebulae, isolated in a larger world, with our own nebula somewhere near the centre. In this case the real distribution would thin out after all the proper corrections had been applied.
Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations. The apparent departures from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, we accept the uniform distribution, and assume that space is sensibly transparent. Then the data from the surveys are simply and fully accounted for by the energy corrections alone - without the additional postulate of an expanding universe.
In this case all the empirical information we have concerning the observable region as a whole is internally consistent. The region appears to be thoroughly homogeneous - an insignificant sample of a universe which extends indefinitely. The conclusion would probably be accepted without hesitation if it were not for the fact that, at the moment, we do not know of any permissible interpretation of red-shifts other than actual motion, actual recession of the nebulae."
In short, Hubble made a reasonable call. It just happened that Einstein
had equations that predicted either an expansion or contraction of the
universe, so the observations were entirely consistent with this notion
of an expanding universe.
>
>
> b. If Hubble, Einstein and their atheist contemporaries
> could have rendered a central Earth impossilble with Harhman, et al's
> ridiculous claim it would have avoided the necessity of introducing
> the ad hoc solution of non Euclidean, curved space. This ad hoc
> solution caused more problems than it solved.
> (1.) Hubble was forced to explain the red shift with
> an expansion of the "curved" space. And the expanding universe had
> some interesting problems of its own.
> (2.) It then became quickly apparent that the
> expansion could not be maintained given the known mass of the
> universe. This caused the introduction of the ad hoc solution of cold
> dark matter/energy which no one can find or explain. It also
> necessitated that this cold dark matter/energy to have "repulsive"
> properties.
does not make dark matter go away. Geocentrists don't even seem to accept
that the universe is expanding, when the red shift law (calibrated by
standard candle methods) basically is undeniable.
>
> c. Wouldn't Harshman, et al's solution been a whole lot
> simpler and parsimonious than the contortions that the Greats of
> Secular Science went to, to avoid a central Earth? Certainly but the
> Greats of Science knew that Harshman, et al's solution was
> simple-minded nonsense given Newton's Laws. The solution was never
> raised because it violates the Third and Second Laws.
>
>
> 7. Finally why doesn't Harshman, et al pen a paper offering their
> solution (which is contrary to Newton's Laws) to any peer reviewed
> paper. Such a claim does not appear anywhere so it would be unique.
>
> Harshman, et al, are finished, embarrassed, and defeated.
>
> What remains is to seen now is if Broccoli, Harshman, Rogers,
> Isaak, and Ernest Major have the intellectual honesty and integrity
> demainded in the fields of science to come clean.
claims that he is making are?
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-John
0 new messages