🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 24, 7:24 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear Ian:  Like others on the groups, you have the luxury of being a
hard-sell.  But being one of those isn't the same as being smart.  Nor
is the length of your replies evidence that you are smart.  All those
things show is that you are both obstinate and beyond reach.  "Science
truths are about the simple things."  There is no need to escape into
your threads and pasted trivia.  — NoEinstein —
>
> On 24 Jul, 00:25, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Jul 20, 8:52 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Ian:  You have been exposed to the trappings of 'science' enough
> > to know some of the terminology and issues.  But your reasoning
> > ability is so small that you are incapable of differentiating a
> > scientific truth from science fiction.  Instead of letting the flawed
> > reasoning of others substitute for your own "knowledge", you should
> > take most of what has passed for... 'physics' with a grain of salt.
> > Unless you do, you would be better off to find yourself another
> > hobby.  — NoEinstein —
>
> It is you and your ilk that is pumping out SF
>
> http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/
> One you get beyond the glam pusses and Nazi propaganda there are some
> very interesting articles.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piecraft/JenseitsflugmaschineFrom
> Wikipaedia
>
> http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/The%20Vril%20Discs.htmAldebaron
> (khayyid?)
>
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ufo_aleman/esp_ufoaleman_6.htm
> 2000+km/h endurance 5½ hr was absolutely absurd.
>
> I want a theory that explains to me why the orbit of Mercury
> precesses, why pulsar pairs lose energy how light bends roung
> gravitating objects. I would like to know too what quasars are.
>
> Give me an alternative theory that fits the facts I am waiting for it.
>
> Talebun has made a good point. Tell me how I can see double stars if
> light travels relative to the source. I am waiting. I think we are all
> waiting. Give me another theory.
>
> I think you are following a long tradition of trying to rubbish people
> and not putting forward real arguments which hold water.
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/c...
> Rand Simberg 112 you are vectored on this reference to 111.
>
> This is absolutely the pits.
>
>   - Ian Parker