Sunday, January 28, 2007

More Gravity Fun - Update

So it looks like the good people over at the Autodynamics discussion group have decided to answer my queries (specifically this one) in the most emphatic way possible; by totally ignoring it. They have posted a response to a previous question without allowing my message to be published. Now maybe this is because they are trying to come up with a solution, but that really shouldn't matter, they should be open about the issues raised and see if any of the other 165 members of the board can come up with a solution.

I'm going to repost the message tomorrow, if it is blocked again I'm going to have to put this down to yet more hypocrisy on their part, after all they are always claiming mainstream science ignores or suppresses alternative views.

7 comments:

jps said...

I noticed that "Will" on the forum is having no luck trying to have a conversation with them. Rather then answering his question they just keep telling him he's biased to an SR way of thinking. Whats there thoughts on maxwell's equations I wonder?

Mark Norris said...

Its up now, on their board, we'll just have to see what comes of it.

IbaDaiRon said...

Yeah! Granma Luce is back!

It is not easy task but some day, some people, will start to walk in the road.

Once thou walkest in the way, Brother, thou shalt not stray!

AMEN!

Mark Norris said...

You mean "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny" surely ;)

cmb said...

el oh el

IbaDaiRon said...

I just popped over by Loons-R-Us again and noticed that the "hard sell" has begun.

So, yeah, Mark, why don't you BUY THE BOOK? Huh huh huh?!

If dissemination of Il Caro Zany's "theory" [sic] were their real goal, wouldn't they be publishing everything on their websites?

(You can't use the "Why don't you publish something in a reputable journal?!" retort because of the cough cough systematic discrimination cough cough against AD cough cough inherent in scientific publishing cough BS cough. Hmm, I need a drink of water or something!)

Btw, I'm just a linguist and English teacher, not an astronomer or rocket scientist like the rest of youse guys, so maybe I'm missing something...but isn't it wrong to refer to something as a "constant" if it depends on something else? If c depends on the energy of the matter involved, can't it be defined as a function of E and M? Doesn't that do inneresting thangs to E=Mc^2?

jps said...

Very good point ibadairon, if they are so bothered about getting their belief/theory out there than they should give away the information in its entirety for free just as the Church do to non believers