"jahn" wrote in message
...
|
| "Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
| ...
|
| To whom it may concern,
|
| I never debate scientific matters anonymously, for, I am so entrenched
in
| my
| crackpottery that I am deluded enough to be proud of everything I write
| and
| argue. Indeed, everyone who is not completely ignorant of my theory and
| my
| style should be able to see quite clearly I am not Suzy or Jahn. For
| example,
| I have always unreservedly supported Lorentzian retardation of EM
clocks.
| The
| Lorentzian retardation of atomic clocks in GPS satellites is an
| established
| fact -- and the ECI frame ether theory that I follow would have a lot of
| explaining to do if that were not the case.
| I don't know why Suzy/Jahn posts anonymously. But the people trying
to
| associate me with these current anonymous posters are the same types who
| tried
| to claim I was Matter (Michael Kozuch) and Vern -- both of whom provide
| their
| real names. (Perhaps, my favorite accusation occurred when a logic
| professor
| backed me over a relativist regarding one of the simplest points of
logic.
| The
| poor prof. was actually accused of being one of my alter egos. )
|
| --Dennis
| PS. Dirk has repeatedly made the claim that he can prove Suzy or Jahn is
| me....
| Well, gosh, Dirk, you wouldn't want to wager on that, would you?
| I didn't think so. ;-)
|
| Dennis McCarthy
|
| Thank you Dennis,
| While I am sure I don't agree with your point of view, I at least have
some
| idea
| what it is just from the above paragraph. This is more than I can say for
| the
| few that just want to be disruptive and play "romper room". Whatever their
| POV,
| it is lost on me and any opinion they offer in the future can only be
| treated as
| coming from someone stupid enough to jam their own signal.
| Kind regards,
| Sue...
Perhaps now you see why some of us regard the moron moortel as nothing
but a simple minded troll whose sole interest is to be disruptive and
offensive.
He has no interest in physics, has never posted anything of his own and is
in general a disgusting illogical lout. The only solution is the kill-file.
Androcles.

"Androcles" wrote in message ...

"jahn" wrote in message
...
|
| "Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
| ...
|
| To whom it may concern,
|
| I never debate scientific matters anonymously, for, I am so entrenched
in
| my
| crackpottery that I am deluded enough to be proud of everything I write
| and
| argue. Indeed, everyone who is not completely ignorant of my theory and
| my
| style should be able to see quite clearly I am not Suzy or Jahn. For
| example,
| I have always unreservedly supported Lorentzian retardation of EM
clocks.
| The
| Lorentzian retardation of atomic clocks in GPS satellites is an
| established
| fact -- and the ECI frame ether theory that I follow would have a lot of
| explaining to do if that were not the case.
| I don't know why Suzy/Jahn posts anonymously. But the people trying
to
| associate me with these current anonymous posters are the same types who
| tried
| to claim I was Matter (Michael Kozuch) and Vern -- both of whom provide
| their
| real names. (Perhaps, my favorite accusation occurred when a logic
| professor
| backed me over a relativist regarding one of the simplest points of
logic.
| The
| poor prof. was actually accused of being one of my alter egos. )
|
| --Dennis
| PS. Dirk has repeatedly made the claim that he can prove Suzy or Jahn is
| me....
| Well, gosh, Dirk, you wouldn't want to wager on that, would you?
| I didn't think so. ;-)
|
| Dennis McCarthy
|
| Thank you Dennis,
| While I am sure I don't agree with your point of view, I at least have
some
| idea
| what it is just from the above paragraph. This is more than I can say for
| the
| few that just want to be disruptive and play "romper room". Whatever their
| POV,
| it is lost on me and any opinion they offer in the future can only be
| treated as
| coming from someone stupid enough to jam their own signal.
| Kind regards,
| Sue...
Perhaps now you see why some of us

shining on
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...alFumbles.html

regard the moron moortel as nothing
but a simple minded troll whose sole interest is to be disruptive and
offensive.
He has no interest in physics, has never posted anything of his own and is
in general a disgusting illogical lout. The only solution is the kill-file.
Androcles.

Dennis: And Dirk sidesteps the wager.

[exceptional top-post]

Hm, Dennis, I hadn't noticed this embarrassing slip. Ouch ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Dennis: And it just gets sillier.
1) If indeed it were true that Sue and I were both making a similar agument
against clock retardation, this still does not imply that we are the same
people as hundreds of dissidents, particularly in newsgroups, argue against
clock retardation for EM clocks.
2) Moreover, It is a known falsehood that I'm against EM clock retardation. I
follow a Lorentz-like view for the love of Pete. The out of context statement
below came from a thread which I showed the ether derivation of EM clock
retardation, writing:

"Dennis: Oscillating media processes obviously have to slow due to motion
through a background medium.
Consider for example an open-air sound clock which uses a sound pulse moving
between a roof and a base to measure a unit of time. When the clock moves
through the atmosphere, its rate slows.
Interestingly when its motion is transverse to the medium, the clock slows
according to the Lorentz retardation factor.
Also,
From P. Beckmann, "Einstein Plus Two," Golem Press, 1987:

"From elementary algebra and sec. 1.3.1 we find the aberration angle

Sin e = B cos A

where A defines the electron's instantaneous position on its orbit. (B = v/c)
The force in the radial direction toward the nucleus is therefore reduced by

cos e = (1-B^2cos^2A)^1/2 ~ 1 -B^2/4

where cos^2A has been averaged over the orbit. This has the same effect as if
the square of the charge were reduced by that amount; we can therefore
calculate force, energy of other quantities using this fictitious charge

q =q0 (1 -B^2/8)

where q is the equivalent of "rest charge." The radiated frequency (or energy
quantum hv) is proportional to the fourth power of this charge [as...found in
any physics handbook] so that the inherently radiated frequency is

v = v0 (1- 1/2*B^2)"

Do you understand that this is a derivation of Lorentz clock retardation, Dirk?

Do you understand that I follow Lorentz clock retardation, Dirk?
My statement below came after I was challenged to provide the same derivation
for non-EM clocks like pendulum clocks -- to which I responded:

Dennis: Show me the experiments which show that these clocks slow down
according to the Lorentzian time dilation equation. Indeed, for moving
pendulum clocks we know that their rate is changed according to other
equations."

which is true. I follow Lorentz retardation for EM processes -- not
gravitational or atmospheric, etc...
Now, please stop with your efforts to mislead people about who I am and what I
believe. If you think you can prove your false claim, then take the wager and
do so.


--Dennis


Dennis McCarthy

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message ...

Dennis: And Dirk sidesteps the wager.

[exceptional top-post]

Hm, Dennis, I hadn't noticed this embarrassing slip. Ouch ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Dennis: And it just gets sillier.

Dennis aka Sue aka Jahn, it's *very* clear that you want to
know how I found out and how I can prove it :-)
And as you perfectly know, I already told your old mate Vern
(who could be you as well, but I can't prove it, so never mind)
to start guessing *why* you are the one who has to do the
guessing. He didn't even try.
Of course both of you perfectly know why that's the way to go.

So you'll have to work for it. Start guessing.
When you hit the jackpot, I'll let you know ;-)

Dirk Vdm

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
...

Dennis: And Dirk sidesteps the wager.

[exceptional top-post]

Hm, Dennis, I hadn't noticed this embarrassing slip. Ouch ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Dennis: And it just gets sillier.

Dennis aka Sue aka Jahn, it's *very* clear that you want to
know how I found out and how I can prove it :-)
And as you perfectly know, I already told your old mate Vern
(who could be you as well, but I can't prove it, so never mind)
to start guessing *why* you are the one who has to do the
guessing. He didn't even try.
Of course both of you perfectly know why that's the way to go.

So you'll have to work for it. Start guessing.
When you hit the jackpot, I'll let you know ;-)


Dirk, please forgive me, but do you think such childish convinces anyone? Read
closely: I, Dennis McCarthy, will bet you $1000 that you are wrong -- that you
can't prove that I am Sue or Jahn or whatever -- and that in fact I am not.
You say you can prove it.
I'm saying you are lying.
And I'm willing to bet $1000 (or how much ever you want) on that.
Okay?
I didn't think so.

Of course you will continue to backdown from the wager. You'll say you don't
like to bet or it's just a trick or, you'll ignore it and just keeping saying
something childish like "guess how I found out," or "no that's not it." This
is precisely like many of our other correspondences where you simply can't
respond in any meaningful way -- like when you were trying to argue that time
is whatever a clock says it is:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...&lr=&ie=UTF-8&
selm=20040218093418.17156.00002297%40mb-m03.aol.com&rnum=39

or the correspondence before that where you could not be made to understand the
well known problem involving modern physics and local, material causality:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...0423190125.188
42.00000393%40mb-m19.aol.com&rnum=16

Indeed, a couple paragraphs from that last correspondence sums up this one
quite nicely:

"Dennis: Oh, my dear Dirk, we had a guy on these boards a few months back who,
when confronted with peer-reviewed articles that challenged a particular
belief, would retort with something to the effect: "Oh, yes, I read the paper.
See if you can find the errors that I found." And he would never specify the
error other than that. So what I am trying to say here is really for your
benefit: Dirk, really, think about this for a moment. Do you really believe
that such, and please don't take offense, that such infantilism really
convinces anyone? It's almost sweetly naive. Look, Dirk, you made a mistaken
comment regarding physics and causality, embracing the concept of material
causality for all material effects -- apparently innocent of the fact that
such comments are at odds with modern physics. You have probably since become
aware that there is no way to extract yourself from such a comment gracefully,
so you hide behind vague allusions that I am making some unmentioned mistake
that you are keeping to yourself. No matter what you may believe, you
obviously haven't obscured the simple fact that you can't address the points I
made to anyone. And I think perhaps a few years down the road, you'll find it
less embarrassing just to admit the mistake immediately. Just a little advice
that I hope you won't take the wrong way.
(....)
"I hope I'm wrong, but judging by past performances, when faced with these
direct questions above, Dirk will respond by editing it all out and posting
vague insults. Let's see if I'm right...
*************************************************
"Anyway, the last two lines of the last post above proved to be prophetic. I
asked Dirk again and again what he believes to be the material causes of clock
differentiation or gravitation, and he edited it out repeatedly. Eventually, he
wrote "I don't know" to both. Lately, over half a dozen posts, Dirk has avoided
explaining what he originally meant by his seeming embrace of material causes
or what he meant by "reading comprehension problem" -- then, comically, he
self-dramatized this lack by suggesting his vacant posts comprised a chess-like
crafting. "
------------------------------------

The more things change... ;-)
Dirk now has made a ludicrous claim that someone who clearly doesn't follow my
ether view or apparently my view of clock retardation was me, that I was, for
some reason, posting these physics views anonymously. More, he is continuing
to state the lie that he can prove it. He has now been challenged with a $1000
wager that there is no such proof. But he'll back down of course

--Dennis






Dennis McCarthy

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message ...

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
...

Dennis: And Dirk sidesteps the wager.

[exceptional top-post]

Hm, Dennis, I hadn't noticed this embarrassing slip. Ouch ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Dennis: And it just gets sillier.

Dennis aka Sue aka Jahn, it's *very* clear that you want to
know how I found out and how I can prove it :-)
And as you perfectly know, I already told your old mate Vern
(who could be you as well, but I can't prove it, so never mind)
to start guessing *why* you are the one who has to do the
guessing. He didn't even try.
Of course both of you perfectly know why that's the way to go.

So you'll have to work for it. Start guessing.
When you hit the jackpot, I'll let you know ;-)


Dirk, please forgive me, but do you think such childish convinces anyone? Read
closely: I, Dennis McCarthy, will bet you $1000 that you are wrong

No, stupid. There is no one to convince of anything.
Read even more closely: unlike you, I was not born yesterday.
No way that I'm just gonna *tell* you how I found out, and
how I can prove it. You perfectly know why.
I'll give you 1 little hint: you really did your best, but you gave
yourself away. For the first part, use the archives - it's all there.
When you guess right, I'll let you know - that is a promise.
And then, if you insist, you can pay me whatever you think
is appropriate. Now go to work - try harder.

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
...

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
...

Dennis: And Dirk sidesteps the wager.

[exceptional top-post]

Hm, Dennis, I hadn't noticed this embarrassing slip. Ouch ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Dennis: And it just gets sillier.

Dennis aka Sue aka Jahn, it's *very* clear that you want to
know how I found out and how I can prove it :-)
And as you perfectly know, I already told your old mate Vern
(who could be you as well, but I can't prove it, so never mind)
to start guessing *why* you are the one who has to do the
guessing. He didn't even try.
Of course both of you perfectly know why that's the way to go.

So you'll have to work for it. Start guessing.
When you hit the jackpot, I'll let you know ;-)


Dirk, please forgive me, but do you think such childish convinces
anyone? Read
closely: I, Dennis McCarthy, will bet you $1000 that you are wrong

No, stupid. There is no one to convince of anything.
Read even more closely: unlike you, I was not born yesterday.
No way that I'm just gonna *tell* you how I found out, and
how I can prove it. You perfectly know why.
I'll give you 1 little hint: you really did your best, but you gave
yourself away. For the first part, use the archives - it's all there.
When you guess right, I'll let you know - that is a promise.
And then, if you insist, you can pay me whatever you think
is appropriate. Now go to work - try harder.

Dirk Vdm

I have no idea how you found out. But you know what I did - I simply
searched for exactly the same rubbish Jahn, Sue or whatever he likes to call
himself writes using google, and guess what popped up in a post from the
year 2000 - the link I gave. Now of course it was not news to me it was
Dennis since you had already documented it but one would think if you wish
to use this rather pathetic tactic you could at least go to the trouble of
changing the words you use. But then again I suppose that would require a
sophistication beyond what a crank can muster - after all if they were that
good they would probably have thought about the responses they got way back
when and figured it out by now.

Thanks
Bill

Dirk, please forgive me, but do you think such childish convinces anyone?
Read
closely: I, Dennis McCarthy, will bet you $1000 that you are wrong

Dirk:
No, stupid.

Dennis: I predicted you'd back down.

Dirk; There is no one to convince of anything.
Read even more closely: unlike you, I was not born yesterday.
No way that I'm just gonna *tell* you how I found out, and
how I can prove it. You perfectly know why.
I'll give you 1 little hint: you really did your best, but you gave
yourself away. For the first part, use the archives - it's all there.
When you guess right, I'll let you know - that is a promise.
And then, if you insist, you can pay me whatever you think
is appropriate. Now go to work - try harder.

Dennis: As I predicted, you'd back down on the wager -- and continue to say
"guess how I did it." You will never state the proof as everyone knows because
you don't have it.
Your response is the type of childish fall back that you use every time you
are challenged. As I wrote to you in a previous correspondence, this is
exactly like the guy who claimed he had found errors in certain peer reviewed
papers that disagreed with his viewpoint. When asked what they were, he said,
well, why don't you see if you can find them yourself. It could not be more
grammar school.
Quite simply, you lied.
I'm obviously not Sue as we follow completely different theories, believe very
different things, have different styles, etc., you oh, so interesting person.
So you don't have proof.
That is why you refuse to post it.
And everyone knows it.

--Dennis

PS. This response by Dirk is just too rich: "Read even more closely: unlike
you, I was not born yesterday. No way that I'm just gonna *tell* you how I
found out, and
how I can prove it. You perfectly know why."
If I wanted to respond in the same juvenile manner: "Well, I have proof that
you, Dirk, crafted all this during a brief stint at a mental hospital when you
were under serious medication. I have absolute proof of this. But I don't want
to provide the proof right now for rather obvious reasons of which you are well
aware."
It's pathetic. It's weasel-like. It's an effort to libel while using a farcical
excuse to avoid furnishing any sort of evidence for the claim.

As ever,
Dennis

Dennis McCarthy

xpress 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:22:01 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.119.171.17
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: phobos.telenet-ops.be 1094844121 213.119.171.17 (Fri, 10 Sep 2004
21:22:01 MEST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:22:01 MEST




"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
...


"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
...

To whom it may concern,

I never debate scientific matters anonymously, for, I am so entrenched
in
my
crackpottery that I am deluded enough to be proud of everything I write
and
argue. Indeed, everyone who is not completely ignorant of my theory and
my
style should be able to see quite clearly I am not Suzy or Jahn. For
example,
I have always unreservedly supported Lorentzian retardation of EM
clocks.
The
Lorentzian retardation of atomic clocks in GPS satellites is an
established
fact -- and the ECI frame ether theory that I follow would have a lot of
explaining to do if that were not the case.
I don't know why Suzy/Jahn posts anonymously. But the people trying
to
associate me with these current anonymous posters are the same types who
tried
to claim I was Matter (Michael Kozuch) and Vern -- both of whom provide
their
real names. (Perhaps, my favorite accusation occurred when a logic
professor
backed me over a relativist regarding one of the simplest points of
logic.
The
poor prof. was actually accused of being one of my alter egos. )

--Dennis
PS. Dirk has repeatedly made the claim that he can prove Suzy or Jahn is
me....
Well, gosh, Dirk, you wouldn't want to wager on that, would you?
I didn't think so. ;-)

Dirk:
You still haven't started guessing how I found out.

Dennis: Read each word carefully:
I, Dennis McCarthy, will bet you $1000 (or as much as you want) that you
are
wrong.

What Dirk edited was my prediction of his response:
As I wrote: "This will now be followed by Dirk backing down, using some sort of
excuse like
dismissing it as a rhetorical trick or making the claim that he doesn't wager
or just continuing to repeat silly things like "still wondering how I found
out?""

Dirk responds:
No, idiot.
I already told you that the idea is that you *guess* how I found out.

Dennis: It's like I'm psychic.
You lied. You have no proof. You don't want to wager. You can't furnish it.
And now you are just repeating the same silliness.



Dennis McCarthy

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
...

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
...

Dennis: And Dirk sidesteps the wager.

[exceptional top-post]

Hm, Dennis, I hadn't noticed this embarrassing slip. Ouch ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Dennis: And it just gets sillier.

Dennis aka Sue aka Jahn, it's *very* clear that you want to
know how I found out and how I can prove it :-)
And as you perfectly know, I already told your old mate Vern
(who could be you as well, but I can't prove it, so never mind)
to start guessing *why* you are the one who has to do the
guessing. He didn't even try.
Of course both of you perfectly know why that's the way to go.

So you'll have to work for it. Start guessing.
When you hit the jackpot, I'll let you know ;-)


Dirk, please forgive me, but do you think such childish convinces
anyone? Read
closely: I, Dennis McCarthy, will bet you $1000 that you are wrong

No, stupid. There is no one to convince of anything.
Read even more closely: unlike you, I was not born yesterday.
No way that I'm just gonna *tell* you how I found out, and
how I can prove it. You perfectly know why.
I'll give you 1 little hint: you really did your best, but you gave
yourself away. For the first part, use the archives - it's all there.
When you guess right, I'll let you know - that is a promise.
And then, if you insist, you can pay me whatever you think
is appropriate. Now go to work - try harder.

Dirk Vdm

Bill:
I have no idea how you found out.

Dennis: Hey, Bill, you want to take that bet as well? One thousand dollars or
as much as you want that I am not Sue or Jahn?
I didn't think so.

Bill: But you know what I did - I simply
searched for exactly the same rubbish Jahn, Sue or whatever he likes to call
himself writes using google, and guess what popped up in a post from the
year 2000 - the link I gave.

Dennis: The link you gave shows that while I believe in Lorentzian clock
retardation for EM processes -- Sue does not.
You think this is a connection?


Now of course it was not news to me it was
Dennis since you had already documented it but one would think if you wish
to use this rather pathetic tactic you could at least go to the trouble of
changing the words you use.

Dennis: This is just too funny, Part I.
What Bill Hobba did was google search "Dennis + by + a+ balance wheel Clock"
because Sue talked about a "balance wheel clock" I have written probably more
than 10 thousand posts and there is almost no phrase regarding light or clocks
or planets or space or ether that wouldn't involve me, and so of course he
found a post involving me. The comical thing is that it was "Martin Hogbin" who
wrote about a "balance wheel clock," not me. I just answered him on a
question.
This is what Bill considers proof, and I'm not kidding.

This is just too funny, Part II:
In the thread Hobba quotes, I actually show a derivation for the Lorentzian
derivation of EM clock retardation and confirm as I have *hundreds* of times
that I accept as fact Lorentzian retardations and that it is an integral part
of the theory I follow. So this once again confirms the obvious fact I am not
Sue.

This just too funny, Part III:
Dirk claims he has proof. I have challenged both Bill and him to a wager that
he doesn't. Alas, and wouldn't you know it:
Dirk wants to keep the proof secret. ;-)





Dennis McCarthy