🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:34:22 GMT, "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote:

>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> doctored  in message
>news:p80do3h9gmrl4vojqisep15eagp5v4rjrr@4ax.com...
>< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/53d76c65c83ec84a >
>and now in news:crtdo35ikr0ng4s09ut5iajke8o1j6v3f4@4ax.com...
>'EMPTY' space has NO dielectric properties. [1]
>If one tries to measure same, one merely measures the
>properties of one's own apparatus....and probably gets 'c'.
>Henri Wilson. ASTC, BSc,DSc(T)
>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>>
>[hanson]
>[2] ... ahahaha.. What do you mean by "probably"?
>Probe ever so kosher Osher Doctorow for a
>a numerical probability value of your notion.
>>
>[3] Here we do have a great opportunity to see
>what kosher P-value Osher has with his *PI*,
>Osher's Precious Intellect, after he answers it,
>or whether Osher only recites items he plucked
>out old high school Text books and re-pastes
>them here on the Usenet... ahahaha.....
>>
>Henri, your [1] assertion is purely a matter of
>definition what space is supposed to represent...
>Therefore... (you carry on from here, Henri)... [4]
>Thanks for the laughs... hahahahahahahanson
>>
>[Henri]
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) wrote
>You know that Androcles was employed for forty years as one
>of those people who changes street light bulbs for the local council.
>During wekends, he used to remove the wiring from wrecked
>cars and sell the copper. He firmly believes that this makes
>him a radio engineer and an expert in physics.
>>
>[hanson]
>.... ahahahaha... But Henri,  justified or not, if your emotional tirade
>above, against Andro, is a continuation of [4] then that is fully
>equivalent to anagrams one can produce with "Dr. Henri Wilson" =
>a "Swindler Rhino" who does "howl: *Dinner, Sir*' " in the fabled
>"Rider's Howl Inn" over the "Worn Dish Liner"... ahahaha...
>>
>[Henri]
>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>[5] Relativists believe that a rotating Sagnac viewed in the rotating
>frame is identical to a nonrotating one viewed from the nonrotating
>frame.  Hahahaha! What about all the imaginary effects?
>>
>[hanson]
>AHAHAHA.. but Henri, you do not address my inquiry [1] and [4].
>Forget... [5], the belief of relativists, Sagnac and imaginary effects.
>Just enlighten me, in simple words, on my inquiry [1] and [4].
>
>... and don't wait for Osher. He is still weighing the probabilities.
>ahahaha... ahahahanson

What's that, Onnash?



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Relativists believe that a rotating Sagnac viewed in the rotating frame is identical to a nonrotating one viewed from the nonrotating frame. Hahahaha! What about all the imaginary effects?