I have to read the article to disagree with you? why?

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #251,462 by boxley 4/9/06 6:28:40 PM Reply	I have to read the article to disagree with you? why? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #251,464 by drewk 4/9/06 6:39:44 PM Reply	The specific disagreement he made, yes When I say, "The position put forth in the article is bogus," to say that I'm wrong it would help to know what it is the article says. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]

time and space story - (boxley) - (26) - April 6, 2006, 12:04:14 PM EDT

No reason to think you can go backwards - (drewk) - (25) - April 6, 2006, 12:20:35 PM EDT

General relativity allows backwards time travel - (ben_tilly) - (24) - April 7, 2006, 03:12:00 AM EDT

The article addressed that - (drewk) - (23) - April 7, 2006, 03:35:23 AM EDT

Point missed - (ben_tilly) - (22) - April 7, 2006, 11:32:03 AM EDT

Your faith is touching - (drewk) - (21) - April 7, 2006, 11:47:11 AM EDT

The point still stands - (ben_tilly) - (20) - April 7, 2006, 01:01:35 PM EDT

We just place the bar at different points - (drewk) - (19) - April 7, 2006, 01:15:24 PM EDT

You were criticizing general relativity, not string theory - (ben_tilly) - (18) - April 8, 2006, 12:21:14 PM EDT

We have measured the distance to over 8000 stars: Parallax. - (Another Scott) - (1) - April 8, 2006, 12:50:08 PM EDT

But only indirectly - (ben_tilly) - April 8, 2006, 03:03:09 PM EDT

Show me where I did that? - (drewk) - (15) - April 8, 2006, 03:45:44 PM EDT

OK... - (ben_tilly) - (14) - April 8, 2006, 05:59:22 PM EDT

Like I said, we just set the bar at different levels - (drewk) - (13) - April 8, 2006, 07:00:03 PM EDT

Yet you believe that stars are lighted by fusion and... - (ben_tilly) - (12) - April 8, 2006, 11:08:06 PM EDT

Now you're telling me what I believe? - (drewk) - (11) - April 9, 2006, 11:54:54 AM EDT

And I was right, too! - (ben_tilly) - (10) - April 9, 2006, 02:33:05 PM EDT

I'll simplify - (drewk) - (9) - April 9, 2006, 03:39:14 PM EDT

I'll complexify - (ben_tilly) - (8) - April 9, 2006, 03:48:23 PM EDT

I'll simplify some more - (drewk) - (7) - April 9, 2006, 04:00:01 PM EDT

I have to read the article to disagree with you? why? -NT - (boxley) - (1) - April 9, 2006, 06:28:40 PM EDT

The specific disagreement he made, yes - (drewk) - April 9, 2006, 06:39:44 PM EDT

But.... - (broomberg) - (2) - April 9, 2006, 06:49:21 PM EDT

That'll work, but kind of hard to *perform* that experiment -NT - (drewk) - (1) - April 9, 2006, 07:04:46 PM EDT

It's been done. - (Another Scott) - April 9, 2006, 08:01:19 PM EDT

This is getting silly - (ben_tilly) - April 10, 2006, 12:03:10 AM EDT

Still, in Bertie's words - - (Ashton) - April 10, 2006, 05:49:36 AM EDT

Impossible.
49 ms