 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2008Henri: Proof that the emission theory is inconsistent
Henri, this one is for you. Given: The emission theory states that the speed of light is constant c relative to the source, and Galilean relativity applies. The Doppler shift will be: f = fo(1 - v/c) Let's see what this theory predicts for the "twins by Doppler" scenario: A B -> |------------------------|----> x 0 L Twin A stays stationary at x=0, while twin B travels at the speed v to x = L, where he turns around, and travels back to A at the speed v. Both A and B emit em-pulses (or light flashes) with the pulse repetition frequency f, and both count the received pulses. When they are back together, they should both have counted the same number of pulses, of course. But will they? Let's see. The duration of the journey will be T = 2L/v. B will see the frequency from A red shifted for the time tBr = L/v and the frequency blue shifted immediately after his return at x=L. So he will see it blue shifted for the time tBb = L/v. So B will count the number of pulses: N_B = f(1-v/c)L/v + f(1+v/c)L/v = 2fL/v A will see the frequency red-shifted for the time B uses to reach x=L, _plus_ the time the light emitted at x=L uses to reach A. tAr = L/v + L/(c-v) A will see the frequency blue-shifted for the rest of time, tAb = 2L/v - tAr = L/v - L/(c-v) So A will count the number of pulses: N_A = f(1-v/c)(L/v + L/(c-v)) + f(1+v/c)(L/v - L/(c-v)) N_A = 2fL/v - 2fLv/(c(c-v)) A will count fewer pulses than B!!! Example: f = 100Hz, L = 1 light-second, v = 0.1c N_B = 2000 N_A = 2000 - 22 Where did those 22 ticks go, Henri? Tick fairies? This can only mean that the theory is inconsistent, that is self contradictory! .... I will admit that I am pulling your leg, Henri. :-) This scenario doesn't show the emission theory to be inconsistent. Of course they must and will count the same number of pulses. There is a subtle error in my calculation above. I challenge you to spot it! The error isn't very obvious. My approach would be correct for any other theory, but a peculiarity in the emission theory makes it wrong. If anybody else will try to spot the error, please let Henri have a go first. It should be no match for a Doctor of Science with a degree in physics and mathematics. :-)  SignaturePaul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ | Henri, this one is for you. | [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] | number of pulses, of course. | But will they? Yes. Now I predict you'll make an error. | Let's see. | [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | _plus_ the time the light emitted at x=L uses to reach A. | tAr = L/v + L/(c-v) You did. >Henri, this one is for you. > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >It should be no match for a Doctor of Science >with a degree in physics and mathematics. :-) I have posted the correction elsewhere. I want to see how long it takes Jekyl and the rest of the ratpack to find it. I wonder how long it took YOU..... in what you read somewhere as a claimed refutation of BaTh, written by relativist. Probably about two years.... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>Henri, this one is for you. >> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > I have posted the correction elsewhere. That sounds like another lie to me. Sounds like you're trying to get out of answering because you know you can't >>>Henri, this one is for you. >>> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >That sounds like another lie to me. Sounds like you're trying to get out of >answering because you know you can't Haven't you found the problem yet, moron? I don't think Andersen knows what is wrong with his little exercise, either. I have already posted the correction to another NG. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >>> I have posted the correction elsewhere. >> That sounds like another lie to me. Sounds like you're trying to get out of >> answering because you know you can't > > Haven't you found the problem yet, moron? > I don't think Andersen knows what is wrong with his little exercise, either. Are you sure there is anything wrong with my little exercise, Henri? :-) > I have already posted the correction to another NG. Really? So which of these postings are you referring to? http://tinyurl.com/294d4b SignaturePaul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ >Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >So which of these postings are you referring to? >http://tinyurl.com/294d4b Paul, the (rather obvious) error has been identified and submitted to another NG under an anonymous name. The date cannot be disputed. I'll let you squirm for a few day yet. YOU don't know the answer do you? You want me to do your homework for you. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You want me to do your homework for you. You see, Paul? Never put up a challenge for a malicious idiot who does not play by rules. It backfires. Always. Dirk Vdm >>>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >It backfires. >Always. Gord...here's another idiot who can't find the mistake.... MY REPLY IS ALREADY PUBLISHED, COMPLETE WITH DATE OF PUBLICATION. SO f.ck OFF, CRETIN! >Dirk Vdm Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>>>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > MY REPLY IS ALREADY PUBLISHED, COMPLETE WITH DATE OF PUBLICATION. > SO f.ck OFF, CRETIN! It seems I stepped on a VERY long toe here. http://www.cross-creek.com/study2/before/LF-sidetrim.jpg Good, I hope it hurt like hell. Dirk Vdm >>>>>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Dirk Vdm On the contrary. It pleases me greatly to see this NG's village idiot make a complete a.s of himself. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>>>>>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > On the contrary. It pleases me greatly to see this NG's village idiot make a > complete a.s of himself. I tend not to believe pathological liars: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ForgedDegree.html Dirk Vdm Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >> Henri, this one is for you. >> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > I have posted the correction elsewhere. I want to see how long it takes Jekyl > and the rest of the ratpack to find it. So you haven't found an error. Maybe that's because there is no error? Maybe I was fooling you when I said it was? Maybe it's a genuine proof that the emission theory is inconsistent? > I wonder how long it took YOU..... in what you read somewhere as a claimed > refutation of BaTh, written by relativist. > Probably about two years.... I calculated the above for the first time last night. I will admit that the result puzzled me for some time - about a quarter of an hour. The question is - what dawned to me after those 15 minutes? That this is a genuine proof that the emission theory is inconsistent, or that I had done an error in the calculation? Can you clear it up, Henri? Is there an error in my calculation? If you - the Doctor of Science with a degree in mathematics and physics - can't find one, I suppose there is none. So it's a genuine falsification of the emission theory. Or isn't it? SignaturePaul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ >Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > >So you haven't found an error. I have..... and it is already published. >Maybe that's because there is no error? there is an obvious error. Even ndrocles said so.... and he should know. >Maybe I was fooling you when I said it was? I didn't need to be told there was an error. >Maybe it's a genuine proof that the emission theory is inconsistent? Maybe it is genuine proof that yet another attempt to bring down BaTh has failed. >> I wonder how long it took YOU..... in what you read somewhere as a claimed >> refutation of BaTh, written by relativist. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >That this is a genuine proof that the emission theory is inconsistent, >or that I had done an error in the calculation? You have made a gross error. Mind you, it is not all that easy to see...like many of those in SR math, the procedure seems logical at first sight. >Can you clear it up, Henri? >Is there an error in my calculation? >If you - the Doctor of Science with a degree in mathematics and physics - >can't find one, I suppose there is none. >So it's a genuine falsification of the emission theory. >Or isn't it? Paul, I have already posted the correction to another NG, where the time and date is recorded. I will reveal it when I am convinced you know the answer yourself. If you are so bloody sure, why don't you do the same. I want to see the idiot jeckyl wriggle and squirm for a few more days. There is no way he will ever locate the error and it might shut him up for a while. I would like to see the pommie engineer's solution, too. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>So you haven't found an error. > I have..... and it is already published. Where? >>>So you haven't found an error. >> I have..... and it is already published. > >Where? Publish YOURS somewhere first, then I'll reveal it. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>>>So you haven't found an error. >>> I have..... and it is already published. >> >>Where? > > Publish YOURS somewhere first, then I'll reveal it. But we *know* you are a confirmed *liar* and so cannot be trusted. You're simply doing it again. If you do not produce the answer, we all *know* that is it because you *cannot* do so. >>>>>So you haven't found an error. >>>> I have..... and it is already published. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >If you do not produce the answer, we all *know* that is it because you >*cannot* do so. Poor boy......making an absolute fool of himself again. If you are so clever, do what I have done and publish the mistake that Paul talks about somewhere, anonymously, and then we can compare notes. You have nothing to lose. Maybe Dinky and Paul ...and the rest of the brilliant religious fanatics here will follow.... Right now, it appears that you cannot understand what Paul wrote at all. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. Still no answer from Henri. waiting .. waiting ... >Still no answer from Henri. waiting .. waiting ... NG messages don't go away...be patient. I like watching you squirm. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>Still no answer from Henri. waiting .. waiting ... > > NG messages don't go away...be patient. > I like watching you squirm. I'm not the one squirming .. you're hoping someone will give you the answer .. or maybe you'll fluke it an find out what the answer is for yourself. Its fun watching you squirm .. you can tell when you do, because you lie more. >>>Still no answer from Henri. waiting .. waiting ... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Its fun watching you squirm .. you can tell when you do, because you lie >more. My answer was published a.m. 6th Feb, OZ time. There are only about 50000 newsgroups, Why don't you go through them all and see if you can find it? Mind you, it might not be in a NG at all. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>>>Still no answer from Henri. waiting .. waiting ... >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > see if you can find it? > Mind you, it might not be in a NG at all. Looks like your time is up. .I gave you an hour .. no show Therefore you have NOT published it as you claimed. Any claims by you otherwise will be even more feeble lies on your behalf. You now officially a LOSER !!!! >>>>>Still no answer from Henri. waiting .. waiting ... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >otherwise will be even more feeble lies on your behalf. You now officially a >LOSER !!!! I think you have proved your physics ability is zero. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>>>>>Still no answer from Henri. waiting .. waiting ... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I think you have proved your physics ability is zero. On the contrary I have shown my understanding of physics an my ability to work with it to be very good. You, of course, are not qualified to judge, being a liar and a fraud. Still no sign of your proof .. I guess still waiting for someone to give you the answer so you can change the date and lie an call it your own? There can be no other conclusion given your known behaviour and the fact that you've not posted your answer. You've lost whatever remnants of credibility you may have had (which were pretty scant) >> I think you have proved your physics ability is zero. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >you've not posted your answer. You've lost whatever remnants of credibility >you may have had (which were pretty scant) Are you still waiting for Paul to tell you the answer? You obviously haven't a clue how to analyse it yourself. I think you'll be waiting a long time...he doesn't know either... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>> I think you have proved your physics ability is zero. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You obviously haven't a clue how to analyse it yourself. > I think you'll be waiting a long time...he doesn't know either... You are the one delaying until someone gives you the answer (or a clue) .. the question was not pose to me .. it was pose to you. You don't have the brains to work it out. An now you lie an cheat to cover up for yourself. You are truly pathetic >>>> I think you have proved your physics ability is zero. >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >brains to work it out. An now you lie an cheat to cover up for yourself. >You are truly pathetic I've just published it again to make sure it doesn't get lost. 9am, 7 Feb. The BIG QUESTION: WHY CAN'T ANY RELATIVISTS FIND THE ERROR? Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. > I've just published it again to make sure it doesn't get lost. 9am, 7 > Feb. so you say .. but you are a liar > The BIG QUESTION: WHY CAN'T ANY RELATIVISTS FIND THE ERROR? why do you think they can't? we are just waiting for you .. the problem was posed directly to you along .. you moron. >>>> Still no answer from Henri. waiting .. waiting ... >>> NG messages don't go away...be patient. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > see if you can find it? > Mind you, it might not be in a NG at all. That is indeed what we suspect. :-) > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. So what is the IQ of those who don't understand relativity? SignaturePaul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ Jeckyl a écrit : > Still no answer from Henri. waiting .. waiting ... He is probably writing to Androcles and Seto right now... http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/ItsMe.html >Jeckyl a écrit : >> >> Still no answer from Henri. waiting .. waiting ... > >He is probably writing to Androcles and Seto right now... Come on in, The more the merrier. All you morons who can't even understand Paul's question, let alone find what's wrong with it..... Hahahahahaha! Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > there is an obvious error. > Even ndrocles said so.... and he should know. So you found the same obvious error as Androcles did? Androcles wrote: |Now I predict you'll make an error. | [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | | You did. The time tAr is obviously wrong? So what should it be? SignaturePaul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ >>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] >| >| You did. I assumed he hadn't read the rest and merely stated "you did" on principle. I'm sure Andro is too far gone to spot the error. >The time tAr is obviously wrong? >So what should it be? tAr is correct. Haven't you found the error yet Paul? I'm not going to tell you yet. It's too amusing....watching your colleagues squirm because they can't find anything wrong. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. > Haven't you found the error yet Paul? I'm not going to tell you yet. It's > too > amusing....watching your colleagues squirm because they can't find > anything > wrong. We aren't looking for it .. you moron . .the problem was set explicitly for you to solve. We are watching YOU squirm an squirm an lie an cheat. it is so pathetic that I think its gone beyond funny to sad >> Haven't you found the error yet Paul? I'm not going to tell you yet. It's >> too [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >you to solve. We are watching YOU squirm an squirm an lie an cheat. it is >so pathetic that I think its gone beyond funny to sad You still can't find it!! This proves conclusively that you have NO scientific ability whatsoever. Nor have your colleagues. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>> Haven't you found the error yet Paul? I'm not going to tell you yet. >>> It's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You still can't find it!! We aren't looking for it .. you moron > This proves conclusively that you have NO scientific ability whatsoever. > Nor have your colleagues. We aren't looking for it .. you moron > Given: > The emission theory states that the speed of light is constant c relative to > the source, and Galilean relativity applies. > The Doppler shift will be: f = fo(1 - v/c) > > [...] Professor Andersen is repeating the same mistake of embracing the mathematics that obeys the principle of relativity and applying the same mathematics to with the gross violation in the principle of relativity. This should not be how physics is done. <shrug> > > Given: > > The emission theory states that the speed of light is constant c relative to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > same mathematics to with the gross violation in the principle of > relativity. This should not be how physics is done. <shrug> How does someone with no education in physics know how physics should be done? > > Professor Andersen is repeating the same mistake of embracing the > > mathematics that obeys the principle of relativity and applying the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How does someone with no education in physics know how physics should > be done? Yes, tell me about yourself who does not even have a college degree in his multi-super-senior years at the University of Alaska. Tell me about Einstein, the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. >> > Professor Andersen is repeating the same mistake of embracing the >> > mathematics that obeys the principle of relativity and applying the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > his multi-super-senior years at the University of Alaska. Tell me > about Einstein, the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. That must be someone different that the Einstein who contributed so much to physics with his theories of relativity .. maybe this other Einstein was a relative of yours .. you seem to share the family traits. > > > Professor Andersen is repeating the same mistake of embracing the > > > mathematics that obeys the principle of relativity and applying the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > his multi-super-senior years at the University of Alaska. Tell me > about Einstein, the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. So how long did it take you to get your physics degree, and what was the granting institution? >> > Professor Andersen is repeating the same mistake of embracing the >> > mathematics that obeys the principle of relativity and applying the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >his multi-super-senior years at the University of Alaska. Tell me >about Einstein, the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Geesey obviously hasn't the brains to discover Paul's error. All he can do is whinge. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. On Feb 4, 3:05 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote: > Henri, this one is for you. > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > It should be no match for a Doctor of Science > with a degree in physics and mathematics. :-) Hi, Paul. Here is an scrambled one-sentence explanation, with the vowels removed so that Henri can't use an anagram program to cheat. fhhklrrrsssttttvvww It's surprising to me that Henri is taking so long. He ought to be VERY familiar with the phenomenon. I don't know exactly how long it took me to figure out, since the total time of 32 minutes on the clock includes writing the answer, scrambling it in alphabetical order, and posting this response. Jerry > On Feb 4, 3:05 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > Jerry It's correct - if you use the right unscrambler. :-) SignaturePaul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ On Feb 6, 8:26 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > > Hi, Paul. > > Here is an scrambled one-sentence explanation, with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It's correct - if you use the right unscrambler. :-) I'm slightly surprised that you unscrambled the anagram so quickly! But then, you had the advantage of knowing what sorts of words would appear in a reasonable answer. :-) In contrast, poor Henri's attempts at bluffing are SO transparent! Jerry >On Feb 6, 8:26 am, "Paul B. Andersen" ><paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >In contrast, poor Henri's attempts at bluffing are SO >transparent! Are you prepared to stake your reputation on this? I assure you, I have published the result and the publication time is securely recorded. I'm just surprised that no relativist has been able to find the error. it is really quite simple. Maybe relativists simply aren't sufficiently intelligent. >Jerry Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. > I'm just surprised that no relativist has been able to find the error. it > is > really quite simple. a) We don't want to give you the answer b) The question was pose irectly to you and only you. Paul knows the answer .. that is all that counts .. it is his little poser for you. YOU have to answer it. YOU can't. You are a liar an a fraud. Any document you show after this (if there even is one) , is simply not acceptable .. you missed the boat for showing you ha any ability an knowlege of physics at all an as such have proven yourself a liar an a fake yet again. You are a pathetic little loser .. your credibility (what was left of it) is completely gone. We laugh all the more loudly at you now than ever before. >> I'm just surprised that no relativist has been able to find the error. it >> is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >of it) is completely gone. We laugh all the more loudly at you now than >ever before. hahahahahahohohohohohawhawhawhawhaw! You are making such a fool of yourself over this you wil have to change you name in future. Paul doesn't know the answer. Otherwise he would have done what I did and published it somewhere anonymously. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>> I'm just surprised that no relativist has been able to find the error. >>> it [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > you > name in future. The only fool here is you, little moron > Paul doesn't know the answer. Otherwise he would have done what I did and > published it somewhere anonymously. Of course he knows .. you really are a moron. >On Feb 4, 3:05 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" ><paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] >includes writing the answer, scrambling it in >alphabetical order, and posting this response. In other words, YOU haven't been able to work it out either... >Jerry Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. > In other words, YOU haven't been able to work it out either... So .. you admit you have not worked it out >> In other words, YOU haven't been able to work it out either... > >So .. you admit you have not worked it out My solution is already published in two separate places. I'm not going to reveal it until Andersen admits he can't solve it himself. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>> In other words, YOU haven't been able to work it out either... >> >>So .. you admit you have not worked it out > > My solution is already published in two separate places. So you say .. but you are a liar > I'm not going to reveal it until Andersen admits he can't solve it > himself. He already knows the answer .. he wants to see if you do, you moron >>> In other words, YOU haven't been able to work it out either... >> So .. you admit you have not worked it out > > My solution is already published in two separate places. > I'm not going to reveal it until Andersen admits he can't solve it himself. OK, Henri. I admit that I can't solve it myself. SignaturePaul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ >>>> In other words, YOU haven't been able to work it out either... >>> So .. you admit you have not worked it out [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >OK, Henri. >I admit that I can't solve it myself. Good! Now let's see your squirming colleagues do the same. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. > >On Feb 4, 3:05 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" > ><paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > In other words, YOU haven't been able to work it out either... Your bluff isn't working. Since I know the solution, I can tell that Paul dropped a BIG HINT into his description of the problem. Without the hint, I might have taken as long as half an hour to figure out the answer. As it was, I figured it out in half the time. It's not a hard problem, especially with big hints like Paul dropped. The day after tomorrow, assuming you still haven't worked things out, I plan to publish the anagram with vowels. Jerry Henri Wilson's Lies http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm >Your bluff isn't working. Since I know the solution, I can >tell that Paul dropped a BIG HINT into his description of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The day after tomorrow, assuming you still haven't worked things >out, I plan to publish the anagram with vowels. I was avoiding looking for an answer, in case HW's taunting got the better of me and I gave him a hint .. but as he obviously doesn't know because he won't provide the answer he claims he has and so he has already lost that challenge, I thought I would have a look at it with an eye for spotting the error .. it took no more than a minute to see the where the error was (checking each line until I got to the error). >>Your bluff isn't working. Since I know the solution, I can >>tell that Paul dropped a BIG HINT into his description of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the error .. it took no more than a minute to see the where the error was > (checking each line until I got to the error). btw: I like your idea of an encoded answer .. that we can show how to decode if Henri every provides his. my encoded answer is jotobflltbaaajrtobflft >>>Your bluff isn't working. Since I know the solution, I can >>>tell that Paul dropped a BIG HINT into his description of the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > my encoded answer is jotobflltbaaajrtobflft I can just envisage HW trying to work out what that means in a hope to get some clue as to the answer, which he claims he has but keeps making excuses for not presenting. >>>>Your bluff isn't working. Since I know the solution, I can >>>>tell that Paul dropped a BIG HINT into his description of the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >some clue as to the answer, which he claims he has but keeps making excuses >for not presenting. Don't be silly. I know Jerry hasn't worked it out yet...and is never likely to.. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>>>>Your bluff isn't working. Since I know the solution, I can >>>>>tell that Paul dropped a BIG HINT into his description of the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > likely > to.. If you knew what it was, and how simple the answer is, you wouldn't say that. >>Your bluff isn't working. Since I know the solution, I can >>tell that Paul dropped a BIG HINT into his description of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >error .. it took no more than a minute to see the where the error was >(checking each line until I got to the error). Well why don't you publish it. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>>Your bluff isn't working. Since I know the solution, I can >>>tell that Paul dropped a BIG HINT into his description of the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Well why don't you publish it. I have .. encoded .. I will decode it (and it will be easy to verify) when you publish yours .. Or admit that you have no solution and have lied once again. >>>>Your bluff isn't working. Since I know the solution, I can >>>>tell that Paul dropped a BIG HINT into his description of the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >you publish yours .. Or admit that you have no solution and have lied once >again. My solution is published. It is not coded. It is real.... not imaginary like yours and Jerry's Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>>>>Your bluff isn't working. Since I know the solution, I can >>>>>tell that Paul dropped a BIG HINT into his description of the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > My solution is published. It is not coded. It is real You are a proven liar and a fraud .. unless you can present it here, then you fail the challenge (which you have failed anyway for not having produced it when challenged) . There is no way anyone here would believe your unfounded claims of having a solution. So . .where is it. We've revealed our encoded answers .. but you are a no-show. > .... not imaginary like yours and Jerry's I've put mine here .. ready to decode when I know that you have either shown yours or admitted that you are a liar. But you have the guts to do it. YOU ARE A LOSER HENRI WILSON !! >>>>>>Your bluff isn't working. Since I know the solution, I can >>>>>>tell that Paul dropped a BIG HINT into his description of the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >unfounded claims of having a solution. So . .where is it. We've revealed >our encoded answers .. but you are a no-show. It is impossible to encode nothing. >> .... not imaginary like yours and Jerry's > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >YOU ARE A LOSER HENRI WILSON !! Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>You are a proven liar and a fraud .. unless you can present it here, then >>you fail the challenge (which you have failed anyway for not having [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It is impossible to encode nothing. I have provided my answer. >>>You are a proven liar and a fraud .. unless you can present it here, then >>>you fail the challenge (which you have failed anyway for not having [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I have provided my answer. <plonk> I will in future always plonk idiots. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>>>You are a proven liar and a fraud .. unless you can present it here, >>>>then [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I will in future always plonk idiots. So that means you are plonking yourself. Well . plonk away .. we know you are a liar and a coward. thanks for further evidence. >> >On Feb 4, 3:05 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" >> ><paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > >Your bluff isn't working. How can I be bluffing when my solution is already published with a date on it? I haven't told you where, that's what you are frustrated. I don't believe that either YOU or Paul knows precisely what the error is in Paul's reasoning, even if you DO know the correct answer, which is indeed pretty obvious. If you do know, as claimed, then there is nothing preventing you from posting your solution to, for instance, an obscure NG in another name. When we have all published and included a firm date of publication, we can reveal our solutions together. >Since I know the solution, I can >tell that Paul dropped a BIG HINT into his description of the >problem. Without the hint, I might have taken as long as half >an hour to figure out the answer. As it was, I figured it out >in half the time. It's not a hard problem, especially with big >hints like Paul dropped. Paul didn't drop any big hint...... and his error is NOT all that obvious. If you think that, "My approach would be correct for any other theory, but a peculiarity in the emission theory makes it wrong", is a big hint then you are being funny. >The day after tomorrow, assuming you still haven't worked things >out, I plan to publish the anagram with vowels. Wait for Jeckyl and the other morons to find it please....and don't cheat and tell them.... Mind you, we could be waiting a long time... >Jerry Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. > How can I be bluffing when my solution is already published with a date on > it? Where .. you have not shown one .. an as you are a known liar, we will not believe you without irrefutable evidence. Anyway .. you have failed the challenge .. your solution was not (an is still not) provided when challenged How about you provide a simply encoded answer which, for which the encoding is obviosu an simple once the answer is revealed (eg jumble the letters of a sentence that explains the error, and show the unjumbled version later on, if you like). Or you could just post the actual answer .. seeing th eproblem was explicitly pose for you, with the rest of us aske not to provide an answer until ou ha provided yours (which you have still failed to do). Come on HW .. surely its not too hard for you? >> How can I be bluffing when my solution is already published with a date on >> it? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >explicitly pose for you, with the rest of us aske not to provide an answer >until ou ha provided yours (which you have still failed to do). I like to give you all plenty of time. ...the longer I leave it the more proof I have that you are a complately incompetent lot. >Come on HW .. surely its not too hard for you? Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>> How can I be bluffing when my solution is already published with a date >>> on [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I like to give you all plenty of time. It took less than a minute to see it > ...the longer I leave it the more proof I have that you are a complately > incompetent lot. And the longer you take .. waiting for someone to post the answer so you whip up yours and pre-date it .. the more evident that you are an incompetent idiot. Come on then .. show the answer to the question that was specifically address to you. and which we have been told to refrain from answering until you do. Or don't you have the guts to do it (or admit that you can't)? > > I like to give you all plenty of time. > > It took less than a minute to see it That's not including reading time, of course. My estimate of how long -I- took to spot the error (maybe 15 minutes) included the time it took to carefully read through Paul's post and to verify the math. Even allowing for reading time, though, you obviously spotted the error much faster than I did. I had a mental block on the point that Paul was stuck on. Congrats! :-) Jerry >> > I like to give you all plenty of time. >> >> It took less than a minute to see it > >That's not including reading time, of course. Yeup .. I had read it when it was posted, but didn't try to find where any error was .. I was more interested in waiting to see HW's reaction and what excuse he'd have for not posting an answer .. he didn't dispapoint. > My estimate of how long -I- took to spot the error > (maybe 15 minutes) included the time it took to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > spotted the error much faster than I did. I had a mental > block on the point that Paul was stuck on. Congrats! Your time was probably similar to mine then, all up. I was only counting the time for actually looking for and finding the error after reading the post thoroughly. That's of course, assuming there is an error and we aren't just playing with what's left of Henri's mind ;););) I wonder if HW really has worked it out yet .. it really isn't *that* hard. But if he had found it, I can think of no reason why he wouldn't post it immediately and show how clever he thinks he is. Why would he choose to look even more dishonest and stupid than he does already? >>> > I like to give you all plenty of time. >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >That's of course, assuming there is an error and we aren't just playing with >what's left of Henri's mind ;););) So you have found the error...assuming there is an error.... hahahahahhohohohahwhahwahahawhahwwwwawhaw! What kind of idiot are you ? >I wonder if HW really has worked it out yet .. it really isn't *that* hard. ...but obviously far hard for you. >But if he had found it, I can think of no reason why he wouldn't post it >immediately and show how clever he thinks he is. Why would he choose to >look even more dishonest and stupid than he does already? It IS posted and dated. You're a f.cking first class moron. Even bigger than geese or draper or dinky.. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>That's of course, assuming there is an error and we aren't just playing >>with >>what's left of Henri's mind ;););) > So you have found the error...assuming there is an error.... > hahahahahhohohohahwhahwahahawhahwwwwawhaw! > What kind of idiot are you ? Nowhere near as big a one as you >>I wonder if HW really has worked it out yet .. it really isn't *that* >>hard. > ...but obviously far hard for you. No .. didn't take long at all >>But if he had found it, I can think of no reason why he wouldn't post it >>immediately and show how clever he thinks he is. Why would he choose to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than > geese or draper or dinky.. Your answer doesn't exist. If it did you would provide a link to it .. or just post it here. You are stalling for time because you are a liar and a fraud and a complete and utter loser. >> > I like to give you all plenty of time. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >spotted the error much faster than I did. I had a mental >block on the point that Paul was stuck on. Congrats! You haven't spotted the error. Even when and if you do, you wont be able to work out why Paul's approach is wrong. >:-) > >Jerry Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 20:55:13 -0800 (PST), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You haven't spotted the error. That would be you that hasn't spohted it .. you're still playing for time hoping that you will, and hoping to get a clue (or even the answer) from someone else. > Even when and if you do, you wont be able to work out why Paul's approach > is > wrong. We already know the answer .. come on gutless .. post yours for all to see so we can marvel at your abilities. >>>> How can I be bluffing when my solution is already published with a date >>>> on [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >whip up yours and pre-date it .. the more evident that you are an >incompetent idiot. Haven't you noticed that it is not possible to change the dates of messages received on newgroups? What is your actual motive Jeckyl. Are you trying to become the world's greatet living idiot? >Come on then .. show the answer to the question that was specifically >address to you. and which we have been told to refrain from answering until >you do. > >Or don't you have the guts to do it (or admit that you can't)? One thing is certain. When my message is revealed, I wont be wasting any more time answering messages from a real idiot like you. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. > Haven't you noticed that it is not possible to change the dates of > messages > received on newgroups? Oh, if you say so then, of course not, I mean, how could someone post a message today and make that message appear to be dated (say) from the 1st february. > > Haven't you noticed that it is not possible to change > > the dates of messages received on newgroups? > > Oh, if you say so then, of course not, I mean, how > could someone post a message today and make that message > appear to be dated (say) from the 1st february. There are various ways that Henri could have cheated. Newsgroup 1 could have the Feb. 5 post: Paul said: > A The above line makes an incorrect assumption. Half Witson Newsgroup 2 could have the Feb. 5 post: Paul said: > B The equality used in the above is nonsense. Helf Wetson Newsgroup 3 could have the Feb. 5 post: Paul said: > C No, these don't add up as stated. Hilf Watson If the error lies in Line A, Henri points us to Newsgroup 1. If the error lies in Line B, Henri points us to Newsgroup 2. If the error lies in Line C, Henri points us to Newsgroup 3. The messages will be too short to pick up in a Google search, and the entirety of Paul's original post will be covered. So when the true error is revealed, Henri will claim that he always knew it, nyeh, nyeh!!! I'm sure that other devious strategies exist. Jerry >>> Haven't you noticed that it is not possible to change >>> the dates of messages received on newgroups? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Jerry I have found Henri's posting. neswgroup: alt.test subject: "Here it is" name: "henri" time: Februar 6, 22:58 European CET (GMT+1) quote: | The error lies in your method of calculating tAb.......which should obviously | be: L/v-L/(c+v) or Lc/(c+v) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | = 2L/v-L/v+L/(c+v) | = Lc/(c+v) end quote. He has found the error. tAb = L/v-L/(c+v) is correct. But his arithmetic from there isn't very impressive. Look at this: | tAb = 2L/v - tAr - [L/(c-v)-L/(c+v)] | = 2L/v-L/v+L/(c+v) | = Lc/(c+v) The first equation is wrong, and every step in the calculation is wrong! tAb = Lc/(c+v) doesn't even have the right dimension! :-) And the statement: "The time difference between the arrival of the last outgoing cycle and the first incoming one is not a exactly one period." doesn't indicate that he has understood the problem. The point is that A will see the last 'outgoing cycle' (the last emitted pulse on B's outgoing leg) some time _after_ he has seen the first 'incoming one'. In my example with numbers, the 22 'missing cycles' from the incoming leg are received while A still are receiving the pulses from the outgoing leg. "Not exactly one cycle" indeed! :-) It is probably a coincidence that he posted it 50 minutes after I put the answer out on my web site. http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Proof_that_the_emission_theory_is_inconsiste nt.pdf On the index file, http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ the link is the small question mark at the bottom of the page. (I will change it to a proper link in the near future.) SignaturePaul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ On Feb 7, 8:40 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > >>> Haven't you noticed that it is not possible to change > >>> the dates of messages received on newgroups? [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > the link is the small question mark at the bottom of the page. > (I will change it to a proper link in the near future.) fhhklrrrsssttttvvww th fstr wvs vrtk th slwr Restoring the vowels "The faster waves overtake the slower" Because of this, as Paul indicated, observer A starts seeing cycles from the incoming leg while it is still receiving cycles from the outgoing leg. The arithmetic errors in Henri's post are pretty awful. Jerry >On Feb 7, 8:40 am, "Paul B. Andersen" ><paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >> It is probably a coincidence that he posted it >> 50 minutes after I put the answer out on my web site.http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Proof_that_the_emission_theory_is... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >seeing cycles from the incoming leg while it is still >receiving cycles from the outgoing leg. Not necessarily. that is a stupid statement. >The arithmetic errors in Henri's post are pretty awful. Yes, I agree. >Jerry Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. > On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:52:50 -0800 (PST), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>receiving cycles from the outgoing leg. > Not necessarily. that is a stupid statement. No .. its correct .. that you think it is stupid just shows your own stupidity >> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:52:50 -0800 (PST), Jerry >> <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >No .. its correct .. that you think it is stupid just shows your own >stupidity This proves how little you know. <plonk> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. >>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:52:50 -0800 (PST), Jerry >>> <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>stupidity > This proves how little you know. Quite the opposite, moron Henri, quite the opposite. >>>> Haven't you noticed that it is not possible to change >>>> the dates of messages received on newgroups? [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > name: "henri" > time: Februar 6, 22:58 European CET (GMT+1) I wonder if that was the only one .. he claimed to have posted it on the morning of the 5th (aus time) but it wasn't posted until two days later X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1202335101 124.187.146.169 (Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:58:21 EST) Hmmm. BTW: My version of the answer jotobflltbaaajrtobflft reverse it and they are the first letters of the words of the sentence "the first light from b on the return journey arrives at a before the last light from b on the outward journey" when you then use the correct time for the duration that A receives blue-shifted light (which partly overlays the time it receives red shifted light), then you get the correct number of pulses. Of course, that means that A actually sees B simultaneously arriving and leaving (with some overlap) An observer beyond point L looking at light from B would see B arrive, then it would disappear, then reappear later leaving L. Weird. >>>>> Haven't you noticed that it is not possible to change >>>>> the dates of messages received on newgroups? [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > >Hmmm. Hmmmm! indeed. This is what really happened. As I somewhat anticipated, Paul did an author search of google and after eventually going through all the 'henri wilsons' on the relevant dates found nothing...so he tried just 'henri' instead and soon found it. You and Jerry obviously didn't have the brains to do that. Now the interesting thing is, Paul must have also found my post on alt.tes, sent the day before...because that was also posted under the name 'henri'. Having now been given the solution, Paul immediately placed it on his website FOURTEEN HOURS AFTER HE SAW MY REVELATION. HE WILL NO DOUBT TRY TO DENY THAT HE FOUND MY POST OF THE 6TH FEB. I challenge Paul to show me evidence that he knew the answer before he read my alt.tes message. >BTW: My version of the answer > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"the first light from b on the return journey arrives at a before the last >light from b on the outward journey" The time span of the returning light is not affected by the time span of the outgoing light. >when you then use the correct time for the duration that A receives >blue-shifted light (which partly overlays the time it receives red shifted [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >from B would see B arrive, then it would disappear, then reappear later >leaving L. Weird. Only if L/(c-v)-L/(c+v) > 1/nu. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. > HE WILL NO DOUBT TRY TO DENY THAT HE FOUND MY POST OF THE 6TH FEB. > I challenge Paul to show me evidence that he knew the answer before he > read my > alt.tes message. He already knew the answer .. moron .. that's why he posed the question for you. DERR. >>BTW: My version of the answer >>jotobflltbaaajrtobflft [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the > outgoing light. So? >>when you then use the correct time for the duration that A receives >>blue-shifted light (which partly overlays the time it receives red shifted [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Only if L/(c-v)-L/(c+v) > 1/nu. It just has to be greater than zero (in theory) which it would be .. in practice it depends on how short a time a device can test for. > >>>>> Haven't you noticed that it is not possible to change > >>>>> the dates of messages received on newgroups? [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > I challenge Paul to show me evidence that he knew the answer > before he read my alt.tes message. Oh, come on! Jeckyl (1 minute, not counting reading) and I (three minutes, not counting reading time) averaged two minutes to figure out the solution to Paul's problem. The fact that you think the puzzle to have been an intellectual challenge, whose solution is not at all obvious, says lots about your own intellectual abilities, which are evidently meager. Besides which, you post was riddled with stupid arithmetic errors. Jerry >ws-server.bigpond.net.au 1202335101 124.187.146.169 (Thu, 07 Feb >> >2008 08:58:21 ES [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >Besides which, you post was riddled with stupid >arithmetic errors. None of posted your solutions until after Paul had read my first message on the 6th...(your 5th). He didn't admit to finding it but he must have done so becasue his search would have found the message easily. After all, it was titled 'to paul' Can he explain why he put it on his website 14 hours AFTER he read my first message. >Jerry Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95. > On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:59:37 -0800 (PST), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > first > message. He didn't find your first message .. AFAIK no has yet. Instead of posting the answer to the question addressed to you, you stuffed about and refused to post it .. now there is no way to determine if you found the answer on your own (as one can easily fake newsgroup posting dates), and the only answer of yours that was found was not posted until after Paul had posted his answer. You failed to post in the timeframe you were challenged with and have only succeeded in showing yourself to be deceitful and dishonest. In the words of the immortal Sherbet: You messed about, I caught you out, Howzat! > >ws-server.bigpond.net.au 1202335101 124.187.146.169 (Thu, 07 Feb > >> >2008 08:58:21 E |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message