Calling Paul Stowe ... Calling Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher
>
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030413...@localhost.localdomain...
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, greywolf42 wrote:
> > >
> > > dl...@aol.com (formerly) <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:VT4ma.4070$554.3492@fed1read05...
> > >
> > > > Welcome to the real world.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As Luc Bourhis has pointed out, nothing that contradicts SR can get
> > > published in a peer-reviewed journal.
> > >
> >
> > So says greywoofie, as the dishnonesty oozes out of his pores.
> >
> > What Luc _actually_ said:
> >
> > "No peer-reviewed scientific publication would accept
> > my paper discussing Aether theories. Why ? Because I
> > would not be able to say something original about it.
> > Hundreds of papers have already discussed every
> > interesting details of the problem."
>
> Yep. Q.E.D. No theory or experiemental paper contradicting SR will be
> accepted by a peer-reviewed journal.
>
Let's get this straight. Luc says MY PAPER DISCUSSING AETHER
THEORIES would not be accepted BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
SAY SOMETHING ORIGINAL, and you believe that that means NO THEORY
OR EXPERIMENTAL PAPER which CONTRADICTS SR WILL BE ACCEPTED!
To Paul Stowe: You called Bob Kolker a "Sleazy pathetic liar" for
what you considered to be his misrepresentation of what Maxwell
said. Now, here is your friend and colleague Barry Mingst,
completely distorting the meaning of what Luc Bourhis said,
INTENTIONALLY, after having the actual quotation shoved in his
face. Why are you so silent about Mingst doing just what you
accused Kolker of doing? Do you have a double standard, one sense
of honesty which you apply to relativists, and a different sense
for which you reserve for etherists?
Why are you not now condemning Barry Mingst for being a
"Sleazy pathetic liar?"
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
OK Stephen, Luc does say the above. He says that 'no-peer reviewed
scientific publication would accept' his specific paper. He DOES
NOT say that He says that 'no-peer reviewed scientific publication
would accept' ANY aether paper. To cliam other is a misrepresentation
of Luc quote and, I believe, intent there.
Now to the relevant issue, question do you think there exists a
bias in the peer review process and publication that will, almost
always (nothing is absolute, not even this), exclude presented
papers favoring the aether metaphysical interpetation?
Paul Stowe
Stephen Speicher
Okay. Unlike Mingst, to your credit you do not attempt to defend
the indefensible, and for your judgment of misrepresentation you
should be applauded. However, I also note two things.
1) You softened the contrast between what Luc actually said and
Mingst's absurd 'interpretation' by referring to "ANY aether
paper" while Mingst actually referred to "No theory or
experiemental paper contradicting SR," the latter being a _much_
more general and _much_ stronger statement. So if you thought, as
you say, that "ANY aether paper" is a misrepresentation, then
what Mingst actually said is ten times of a worse
misrepresentation.
2) You say "To cliam other is a misrepresentation." So since
Mingst _did_ claim otherwise, even after being shown the actual
quote, I ask again: why do you not condemn Barry Mingst as being
a "Sleazy pathetic liar," as you recently did with someone else
whom you thought misrepresented Maxwell's words?
> Now to the relevant issue,
>
Whoa. Hold your horses! Maybe _you_ would like to focus
attention elsewhere, but the blatant dishonesty of Barry Mingst
(aka greywolf42) is a _very_ relevant issue to me, as well as to
the group as a whole. Many of us, for quite some time, have been
identifying behavior by Mingst in which he intentionally
misrepresents what others say in order to create a false
impression of their purpose and motivation. For the first time in
all these many instances you have now acknowledged -- albeit with
a softer brush -- that indeed Mingst has misrepresented Luc's
words, and Mingst purpose in creating such a false impression
should be clear. I find that _very_ relevant.
> question do you think there exists a
> bias in the peer review process and publication that will, almost
> always (nothing is absolute, not even this), exclude presented
> papers favoring the aether metaphysical interpetation?
>
My answer would depend on what you mean by 'bias.' Bias can mean
an inclination or outlook, or it can mean an unreasoned judgment.
I would agree to the former, but not to the latter. It is my view
that any nonstandard theory has an upwards hill to climb, and the
inclination in mainstream peer review is to favor the more
established. I do not find this unreasonable -- that is,
afterall, why it is called mainstream -- especially if the
nonstandard theory is some rehash of a concept which was
mostly discarded almost 100 years ago.
There exist non-mainstream Journals designed to fill that void,
but, unfortunately, most represent the flip-side of what you
attempt to rail against. Many such Journals accept nonstandard
theories _primarily_ because they are nonstandard, and in doing
so degrade the value on non-mainstream theories. What rational
person would ever want to have their theory published next to one
from the likes of a Ken Seto!
So, yes, I agree that there is a bias (in the sense I outlined)
against aether interpretations in peer review, and, even more
generally, a bias against most nonstandard theories. But, just
like a new artist has to educate his public to his form of art
before he becomes acknowledged, so must nonstandard theories have
to work much harder to make their case to the mainstream. I see
nothing wrong with this, per se.
However, with all that said, if some nonstandard theory can make
a prediction different from the standard theory, and if that
prediction can be experimentally validated -- and here I do not
mean the garbage that greywolf42 picks out of his butt -- then
you will gain the attention of the mainstream real fast.
Everybody loves a winner.
The problem with all of this is that 99.99999% of the nonstandard
theories are such garbage, and 99.99999% of the nonstandard
experimental claims are so phony, that the mainstream has become
so shell-shocked that they tend to be dismissive of _anything_
nonstandard -- rightfully so! This newgroup is a fine microcasm
of just that. The lunatic ravings of the nonstandard "theorists"
on this group is enough to drive a person crazy, so if there
actually exists a little gem buried deep within the muck, the gem
has to work 10 times harder to be taken seriously. Again,
rightfully so, considering the circumstances.
But, to bring this back to where we began, what else can anyone
expect when the likes of a dishonest greywolf42 is seen as
representing the nonstandard approach. Ignorance and dishonesty
is a lethal combo.
Dan Rumney
It's a new-fangled device that allows people to conduct private
conversations.... much like this one... without other people reading it and
clogging up bandwidth
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030414...@localhost.localdomain...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 25/03/2003
greywolf42
Preacher Speicher starts an entire thread for insults.....
Perhaps because Paul has a brain, instead of just a knee that jerks with
religious conviction.
As noted in the pertinent thread.....
And so we end another classic devolution by Die Hard Relativists (DHRs).
Whenever the DHRs are confronted with something embarrassing (such as actual
evidence) about SR or the Standard Model, the approach is to constantly
divert into side issues. At each step, the original point of physics is
snipped, as we descend further and further from physics to some quote or
interpretation. Then when -- eventually -- a DHR can find something that
can be misinterpreted, they *SCREAM* their findings and demonize the
poster -- calling in their friends to join the party.
> Calling Dirk Van de moortel ... calling Dirk Van de moortel.
>
> This is a classic for ImmortalFumbles, don't you think?
Let's summarize how this poor thread got so tangled and diverted:
Original question by RTT:
"...Does general relativty say that the speed of light is constant to
observers in both uniform *and* non-uniform motion? ..."
PMB:
"GR states that when measured locally (i.e. 'At the same place.' whatever
that means ) the speed of light is constant and has the value 'c' it has in
special relativity. But in general the speed of light depends on the
gravitational potential. Some would call that the 'coordinate speed of
light.' "
"Einstein proved this in his 1911 paper. You can pick up the Doves book "The
Principle of Relativity" and he proves it in that book since the 1911 paper
is reprinted there"
Tom Roberts (re PMB's last statement, standard claim for unreferenced
experimental evidence):
[I can't resist Tom's first sentence, where's "Immortal Fumbles" when you
need them?]
"He really proves what I said, not what you said, even though your words are
closer to his than mine are...."
"...The proper tick rate of an ideal clock, the proper length of an ideal
ruler, and the mass of an ideal pointlike object are all INSTRINSIC
properties of those objects. All are independent of how one measures them,
of how they are accelerated, or of how fast they may be moving relative to
the measurement apparatus."
"The decay rate of a real muon behaves within ~0.1% of an ideal clock for
accelerations up to 10^18 gee. ... These are all real experimental
observations."
greywolf42 (in response to Tom's claim for experimental evidence):
"Odd that it doesn't work that way for unstable isotopes in centrifuges."
Tom Roberts (evasion #1, denial of possibility, ex cathedra):
"A centrifuge is woefully inadequate to achieve a large enough acceleration
(really acceleration * radius, or equivalently tangential velocity) for the
effect to be measurable. IOW the experimental resolutions for such an
experiment would be enormously larger than the effect."
greywolf42 (providing references to physical experiment):
"...See:
'... An effect observed by D. H. Whitaker for Los Alamos National
Laboratory.* He reports that a sample of radioactive 198Au exhibits a seven
standard deviation shift in its nuclear decay rate when subjected to a
centrifugal (pseudogravitational) field of about 200,000 g. His result is
not widely know, so it has never received independent study.'
Quote from:
"Status of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant," G.T. Gillis, Gravitational
Measurements, Fundamental Metrology and Constants, p 191, 1988, Sabbata and
Melnikov (eds)
*D.H. Whitaker, 'The effect of acceleration on the decay rate of 198Au,' Los
Alamos National Laboratory Technical Report No. LA-9388-MS, June 1982, 7pp
dlzc (evasion #2, snipping both references and insulting both authors --
without reading either, of course):
"Maybe it didn't receive 'independent study', because he was too embarrassed
to repeat it."
"Welcome to the real world."
[Note that Bilge -- in a parallel part of this thread -- also begins the
process of denying the existence of both the references and the experiment
reported by same. But I have no need to belabor the point.]
greywolf42 (pointing out evasions):
"Why the mud-slinging about someone you don't know?"
"Independent study means someone ELSE repeats the experiment. Lack of
independent study means lack of interest or lack of willingness to sacrifice
one's standing in the community."
> Welcome to the real world.
"As Luc Bourhis has pointed out, nothing that contradicts SR can get
published in a peer-reviewed journal."
Stephen Speicher (foaming at mouth, snipping the physics and jumping right
into a quibble on the meaning of a quote.):
"So says greywoofie, as the dishnonesty oozes out of his pores."
"What Luc _actually_ said:
'No peer-reviewed scientific publication would accept
my paper discussing Aether theories. Why ? Because I
would not be able to say something original about it.
Hundreds of papers have already discussed every
interesting details of the problem.'
"Greywoofie is a filthy liar, a distorter of fact, and _nothing_ he ever
says should be taken seriously."
=============
Hey gang, isn't this fun? We've completely left the subject of physics.
Why bother to address those grandiose claims of experimental results by SR
and those embarrasing contradictory experiments? When we can chop all
reference from our posts and sound authoritative.
=============
greywolf42 (applying elementary logic to Luc's quote):
"Yep. Q.E.D. No theory or experiemental paper contradicting SR will be
accepted by a peer-reviewed journal.:"
================
And now we reach Preacher Speicher's current raving diversion and call to
exorcise all anti-SR demons. His method (as usual for him) is to not only
insult the immediate author (me), but to extend his insults to anyone and
everyone with whom he disagrees.... stooping so low as to imply that those
who disagree are National enemies, allied with Saddam Hussein.
================
Stephen Speicher (foaming and *screaming* even more):
"Let's get this straight. Luc says MY PAPER DISCUSSING AETHER THEORIES would
not be accepted BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY SOMETHING ORIGINAL, and
you believe that that means NO THEORY OR EXPERIMENTAL PAPER which
CONTRADICTS SR WILL BE ACCEPTED!"
==========
The above shows Stephen is capable of copying and capitalizing.
==========
"Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, could be that stupid to claim that those two
statements mean the same."
==============
Actually, anyone with half a brain or an ounce of honesty -- who has read
these newsgroups -- can see that the two statements are essentially the
same. For on this N.G., there are only (or at least 99%) two approaches:
SR and physical media (aether) theories. If you are contradicting SR, you
are supporting a physical cause. If you are supporting SR, you are
contradicting physical causality (aether).
==============
"Also, we can rule out a difficulty with grasping the English language by a
foreign speaker, so we are left with sci.physics.relativity's version of
Baghdad Bob."
==============
Now we segue from even the quote Preacher is raving about, and devolving
into the full demon treatment. And not only about the immediate poster
(me). Preacher must attack all infidels!
==============
"Baghdad Bob screams that there are no Americans here, even as they are
pounding on his front door, and Baghdad greywoofie likewise denies the facts
which are staring him in the face. The same motivation exists for each of
these two mentally disturbed creatures, namely the inner feeling that if
they deny reality somehow it will go away."
==============
Preacher now moves to his standard claim. His personal interpretations are
"facts". And all who disagree "deny reality." Adding the claim of mental
illness.
==============
"Greywoofie, you are, without a doubt, an unbelievably pathetic excuse for a
human being."
==============
And the final closer is Preacher's patented insult. (Why limit yourself to
one or two personal insults, when you can write three?)
And so another classic DEMONstration of the standard DHR process.
1) Claim experimental support to ludicrous levels.
2) Snip the references to contradictory experiments.
3) Deny the existence of the references.
4) Deny the possibility that the experiments might be valid, or even worth
looking up.
5) Insult the poster of the contrdictory experiments/references.
6) Claim that contradictory experiments would be embraced by all, and Nobel
prizes awarded.
7) Place all the evidence presented counter to #6 (in this NG over the past
several years) into the memory hole.
8) Insult the poster.
9) Find a minor point (unrelated to physics) to interpret differently.
Claim the poster is a demon, insane, traitor, physically ugly, etc. Repeat.
Those who might possibly be interested in the potential experimental
disproof of SR/GR are welcome to read the references and form their own
opinion.
Get a (better after)life, Stephen.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Jeff Krimmel
"Dan Rumney" <m...@danrumney.com> wrote in message
news:3e9bbea0$0$45173$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net...
> You guys ever heard of email?
You ever heard of a newsgroup filter? Filter out the posts from people, or
about subjects, which you have no interest reading. Trust me, around here,
you'll make good use of such filters.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Stephen Speicher
Evidently, in this case, that would seem to be true. And, his
brain also seems to be accompanied by a greater allegiance to
fact than friendship, since Paul has already responded saying
that what you wrote is a "misrepresentation" of the Luc Bourhis
quote.
Greywoofie is a distorter of fact, as acknowledged by all but
him.