Hi Stephen, Why do these discussions always have to end like this?
> Excuse me. For the record, you accused me of having SR as my "religion", after which I observed that "cranks" always seem to say that in relativity discussions, which is true. Go back and check the post. On March 5, after writing many snide remarks to me in your reply and providing arguments unrelated to the discussion at hand, you responded: >> Now I have just presented you with rock solid fatal flaws in >> Einstein's mass/energy equivalence theory. There was no equation to >> begin with, and even when the so-called E=mc^2 equation is used to >> explain mass deficit, it predicts the opposite of what we are told. > Not as far as I can see -- you asserted it does, but your assertion is senseless, as far as I can see. Without pointing out any error in my mathematical analysis of E=mc^2 you told me that my assertion was senseless. Doesn't that count as name calling? It certainly isn't rational or logical. > I didn't say "You are a crank". I said "cranks" (are you one?) always seem to resort to claiming people who "believe in" relativity have it as their "religion". Actually, it went like this: >> And if you choose to believe in SR, then the discussion has degraded >> from one of science to one of religion and I will not violate your >> right to freedom of religion. > That's how the cranks always end it -- SR is your religion, you must > be just taking it all on faith because nobody could understand it. I clearly said nothing of the sort about SR being your religion. I said that the discussion was degraded to a religious discussion once you gave up on the mathematical analysis I presented on E=mc^2. Science involves math and data, religion relies on defending unquantified personal beliefs, such as ignoring the science and degrading my scientifically presented argument as a "senseless assertion." > That is hardly "resorting to name calling" on my part, rather it's a defense against an ad hominem attack from you, and any time spent checking the science newsgroups (e.g., sci.physics.relativity) will confirm that what I said about "cranks" is true! Now that is a senseless assertion! Once again, you resort to name calling because you can't defend E=mc^2 as an equation. Without E=mc^2 being an equation, everything based upon the treatment of E=mc^2 as an equation is built upon nothing. Will you never give up on your ad hominem attacks and denying you are doing it? > And then, rather than expand, rephrase, or defend your mathematical arguments, YOU said _I_ was "irrational and brainwashed", and said it was the "end of the discussion". And, indeed, that response from you ended any "discussion" with _you_ as far as I'm concerned. Actually, you ended the discussion when you said, "That's how the cranks always end it -- SR is your religion..." I merely agreed with you that if you have gotten to the point of name-calling and ignoring the science, then the discussion had indeed ended. > By the way, an "ad hominem" attack is against the person rather than the arguments. That is what you did. I attacked your _arguments_, and you attacked _me_. You are so full of yourself. Go back and read everything carefully. > Apologize for calling me "irrational and brainwashed", and we can continue the discussion, if you like. Your whole message was full of snide remarks and evading the topic on hand. Then you call me names and deny you did it, even though it is clearly in writing, and further you accuse me of saying things that are not in writing. > But it's YOUR decision to end it -- YOU said "End of discussion" and called _me_ irrational ... not the other way around. If you read what was actually written, you would see that you have, indeed, been irrational. That is not a personal opinion, but a statement of fact. > And, unless I'm sadly mistaken, by resorting to insults directed at me and my person, not my arguments, you are in violation of the rules of this email group. You called me a crank in two different posts, now. Where does that put you? Dave
