David Thomson wrote:
>> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=David+Thomson+nobel&qt_s=Search
>
> Just keep showing us the stuff you are made of Paul.
I make a real effort to back up as many statements as possible, as in my above
example I provided the link. Take your above statement. You simply make a
claim, as usual. Just keeping it real Dave.
> You do a greater job
> of it than I could. Once you do enough reading about the person who wrote
> that, you'll find his name is Lee and he's either from Japan or The
> Philippines. He's one of several intelligent, open-minded seekers of the
> truth out there who have taken the time to read and understand the Aether
> Physics Model. You seem surprised that there are people who have read,
> understood, and support the Aether Physics Model. How else do you think I
> got invited to Imperial College in London to give a talk at the 2006 PIRT
> conference last fall?
Lee from Japan or Philippines huh? That's funny since his email is
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" So Lee from Caltech who lives in Japan or
Philippines decided to write a long email to the physics usenet community
because he thought David Thomson needed a Nobel Prize?
>>> You may not have noticed all those graphics in
>>> the papers. But those are computer generated
>>> images, based upon the Aether Physics Model.
>
>> Then the obvious question is were the images created using a graphics
>> program or by writing custom software? I am referring to writing software
>
>> written in a computer language such as C++, not a person using a graphics
>> program.
>
> How about a real science program, like MathCAD 11?
That's fine as far as creating a static image, but you cannot compare MathCAD to
C++. You are aware MathCAD was written in a lower level language, quite possibly
C++? Most software engineers do *not* write simulation software in MathCAD
because -->
1. You are limited in what you can do in MathCAD relative to low level languages
such as C++.
2. Even if you could create a simple simulation program in MathCAD, the C++
program has far higher potential of being magnitudes faster.
>> The difference between writing software and using a program is like
>> comparing QM to basket weaving.
>
> Hmmm, okay. And I have just read the rest of your tirade. I have no
> comment and only hope others on the list have not stopped reading this
> thread. I think it is quite revealing.
>
I have to once again ask for you to elaborate and show some proof. While you're
at it, why don't you show your proof when you wrote, "I deleted the psychotic
ramblings." Care to be a little coherent and back up your statement in quoting
what you believe to be "psychotic ramblings?"
This is indeed wasting too much time. I have research to conduct, and you have
books to sell. Enjoy capitalizing on the theoretical physics community.
Seriously, shame on you!
Regards,
Paul
