Dec 16, 2009 -- 8:18AM, caduceus wrote:

Dec 15, 2009 -- 8:50PM, Ken wrote:

Dec 15, 2009 -- 7:49PM, caduceus wrote:

Pre 1950's astronomy was proven to be wrong to the most ridiculous extent by with the advent of space probes. Almost everything had to be revised to the extent that it's almost impossible to find a book today from that period. I know, I've tried.

Try a large public library. Mine has astronomy books much older than that.  

Point to a 1950's astronomy title on any of the book sales sites?

Why?

OK. Let's do repetition.

The links to the two videos I posted show a working example of scalar wave technology. Try explaining longitudinal waves that pass through a Faraday Cage in terms of relativity physics?
See also the Caduceus Coil; radiation from which passes through metal shielding in the same manner.

Such things are glossed-over by the mainstream because they don't fit theory, not because they don't work

If you want to comment on the videos then fine, but I'm not playing your game.

Namaste
AL

Dec 16, 2009 -- 6:51PM, Blü wrote:

AL

You're trying to change the subject again.

THIS is FUNNY ...

AL: I've been through all of this so many times on these threads I'm bored with it and so you'll have to excuse my not wanting to do it all over again...   Thinking for yourself is not a crime and the internet is the last bastion of free thinking. Prior to that our thinking was decided for us by scientists, editors and goverment etc. Try not to bring back the censorship, please.

Gee, that was good --- you claim that huge amounts of science are totally wrong and when someone asks for a side-by-side demonstration of your explanation and the mainstream explanation, you cry "censorship;"  could you just not figure out a way to work "Nazism" into the conversation or are you saving the big guns for later?  Your response is very similar to what I get back when I ask YECs for the science behind all their nutty claims.

But maybe 3 different examples are too many, especially if there is a lot of hairy math involved. 

So let's just see the "AL alternative" explanation for one: what is your better explanation of why corrections that exactly match differences due to relativity are necessary for accuracy in GPS and what evidence supports that explanation?

Dec 18, 2009 -- 11:38AM, teilhard wrote:

Dec 17, 2009 -- 5:49PM, Blü wrote:

AL

 

I'm concerned about what's true in reality and you're only concerned with maintaining your fantasy-of-the-day.

We may as well end our discussion.

 

Brother Blu

 

is concerned with Physics Experiments and Chem Lab Results,

with Sample-of-Stuff and measurable Forces ...

And he is right to be so concerned. It is what has made all the difference and the reason why we no longer live in mud huts, watch so many of our womenfolk and infants die in childbirth, etc.

On the other hand, religion continues to give comfort while helping people how not to understand the world.