BOUW bashes AMOR AGAIN Part 2 !!!! (a GOOD one)!!!!

BOUW bashes AMOR AGAIN Part 2 !!!! (a GOOD one)!!!!

Post by Dave or Debb » Fri, 02 Jan 1998 04:00:00


CB Newsies:

Here it is, the 2nd posting of Bouw that day on the same issue.  My
additions are double spaced in all caps to see easier I put in this
UNedited letter! This one IS BETTER than the last one I posted!  
Sorry AMOR, you LOSE AGAIN!!  You ALWAYS lose when you MESS with the
truth!   Dave !!!
----------


> To: Dave or Debby

> Date: Monday, December 22, 1997 6:47 PM


> >Gerry:

> >Look what that GEEK sent just a little later after I posted yo response!
> >Dave

> >THE 1ST RESPONSE TO THE 1ST RESPONSE:
> >Mike Dworetsky sezz the following in sci.astro:

> >The site is uninformative and mainly seems to be an attempt to market
> >his books.

> Liar.

> >He seems to be in the Computer Science Department, not Physics or
> >Astronomy, and his College seems to believe the PhD is real.  I'm afraid
> >having a PhD proves nothing except that one entered a PhD program with
> >an acceptable project and convinced a committee of examiners that the
> >thesis deserved an award.

> True for 100% of all Ph.D.s.  So?

> >Aside from that, he is an academic at a reputable liberal arts college
> >in Ohio with links to the United Methodist Church (Baldwin-Wallace
> >College; http://www.bw.edu/) but again he is not an astronomer.  His
> >institution has a small physics department with a 'conventional'
> >sounding curriculum; why not ask one of them to comment?

> >He has a link to a homepage that seems to advocate the Tychonic theory
> >of the solar system.  There are a few old references cited to support
> >some claims but none that really address the central issues.

> Which are...?  This guy is at best an undergrad who hasn't had a
> course in relativity, has never heard of Mach's principle (a.k.a.
> geocentricity, and is in physics, not astronomy.

> >His books sound like the usual type of creationist drivel (lots of
> >clever sophistry, using the Bible as 'evidence' in a scientific context
> >as if it were a peer-reviewed journal, references mainly to obscure
> >papers published on the fringes of science or largely in creationist
> >sources), but no, I haven't read them.  I definitely would not pay to
> >read one, so if anyone thinks I am being unfair then they will have to
> >buy a copy and send it to me!  Even then I probably would not have the
> >time though I might do it for a book review.

> Look at who'se uttering sophistry.  Physische Zeitschirift, Physics A
> & D, Nature, Science, etc. are "largely creationist sources."  But
> why not look at "Massive Superstrings and the Firmament" at the
> web site?

      I THINK THAT THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO CLICK THEIR MOUSE!!!--Dave

Quote:

> >I would like to hear his explanation of the annual aberration of
> >starlight, and of the annual cyclic doppler shift of starlight which
> >astronomers explain as due to the Earth's motion around the Sun.

> He didn't read "Why Geocentricity?" at the web site.

        BECAUSE HE IS A PENCILNECKED GEEK,
GERRY!!!!!                     Pencilneckers CAN'T READ!!!!!-Dave

- Show quoted text -

> >I use the heliocentric (technically, the barycentric) theory every day
> >when I reduce stellar radial velocities, and I have never found any
> >inconsistencies;  Geoff Marcy et al in the planet-hunting teams could
> >not conceivably have made their discoveries unless these calculations
> >worked to extreme precisions.  Nor, for that matter, could those who
> >study the timings of pulsars have ever succeeded in their work using a
> >ptolemaic or tychonic model.

> He didn't read "Why Geocentricity?", knows nothing about Mach's
principle,
> and has not read Barbour and Bertotti's article referenced in "Why
> Geocentricity?" and is stupid enough to think that deriving "barycentric
> theory" (equations) from a heliocentric position proves heliocentrism
> while deriving the same equations from Mach's principle (geocentricity)
> disproves geocentricity.  He uses the geocentrically derived equations
> "every day" and doesn't know it!

> >That isn't exactly what you wanted to hear, but make of it what you
> >wish.

> >--
> >Mike Dworetsky, Department of Physics      
> >& Astronomy, University College London  
> >Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT  UK      

> >Amor Powers sezz:
> >Well, I guess peer review is good for something.

> Peer review means YOU READ THE PAPER, not the "ads."

        YOU TELL HIM, GERRY !!!!!!!! Maybe he CAN'T READ!!!!-Dave
Quote:

> Jeers.
> G. Bouw, Ph.D. (Astronomy, 1973, Case Western Reserve Univ.,
> check it out.  Why do you think I put the date and University
> with the degree?

         TO PROVE THAT THEY CAN'T SEE OR READ !!!!!!  They are "Public
Fool" (School) grads !---Dave

- Show quoted text -

> Prof. Gerardus D. Bouw

> Home page: http://www2.bw.edu/~gbouw/
> Fax:    (440) 826-6973

 
 
 

BOUW bashes AMOR AGAIN Part 2 !!!! (a GOOD one)!!!!

Post by Toolma » Fri, 02 Jan 1998 04:00:00


What the hell are you talking about? I'm sick of this crap. It is off topic;
take it elsewhere. If a Phd impresses you so much why don't you sell all
your cb's and go to school and get your own.

Tim


>CB Newsies:

>Here it is, the 2nd posting of Bouw that day on the same issue.  My
>additions are double spaced in all caps to see easier I put in this