I do not think I have EVER heard of a skeptic/critic ever change their mind and apologize, for anything!
It's not even anything I ever expected to see. What ever next? On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:52 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson < [email protected]> wrote: > It was brought to my attention the apparent fact that a prominent critic > of R. Mills CQM theory, John Connett (aka Nora Baron – from the old Yahoo > Hydrino group) has recently apologized to Randy for criticizing certain > mathematical aspects of his CQM theory. I haven't found the direct source > but an indirect source (if it can be believed) can be read out at SCP yahoo > group: The Society for Classical Physics. > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > August 4 2010 > > SUBJECT: > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/message/831(from > novel_compound) > > > > > Connett 's retraction > > > > > > A surprising development! > > > > > > Dr. Connett wrote, > > > > > > "I retract here recent comments I have made indicating that > > > Randell Mills' orbitsphere must radiate and therefore be unstable. > > > There are gaps in what I erroneously regarded as mathematical > > > proof of the flaws in the model. I regret having overstated my > > > conclusions and I recognize that there is merit in Dr. Mills' > > > extensively developed arguments. And again I apologize for > > > unwarranted and uncomplimentary statements I have made regarding > > > Dr. Mills himself, and wish him the best of luck in pursuing > > > his ambitious goals." > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > R. Mills appears to have accepted Connett's apology: > > > > August 4 > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/message/834 > > > > > Dr. John Connett, University of Minnesota, has corrected his > > > analysis of the nonradiation issue and offered an apology > > > that I accept. I appreciate his well wishes for our progress. > > > I support fair, respectful, and open-minded scientific debate > > > for everyone's benefit. > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > Several hours prior to either accepting and/or becoming aware of Connet's > apparent apology R. Mills posted a critique of Connet's mathematical > analysis. Of particular interest to me was Mills' final paragraph, which > read: > > > > > Taking his responses at face value, I don't have time to > > > teach Dr. Connett E&M. He'll have to work that out on his > > > own as I get back to my work on one of the most important > > > discoveries in history. Tragically for all, Dr. Connett > > > included, I predict that he will continue his mission to > > > obfuscate same. Master Zimmerman beckons. > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > I infer from this that R. Mills' might be preparing to place "master" > Zimmerman in his cross hairs. > > > > Years ago I recall John Connett at one time criticizing some of my own > posts out at the official Non-Yahoo CQM web site which I believe is still > managed by Luke Seltzer. > > http://forum.hydrino.org/ > > > > Years ago Connett attempted to publicly analyze my psychological > motivations - what he perceived to be my apparent undying and unwavering > belief in BLP. It went on for pages. I'm not sure where he got that > impression from. My perception of that particular post was that he might > have been fishing - attempting to find something that he could use later as > rhetorical fodder against me, to keep me at a disadvantage. In prior posts I > noticed that when he addressed me it was often done in a manner that would > raise unanswered questions meant to raise the specter of one’s ability to > properly analyze things in general. Whatever... I suggested he stick to his > chosen profession, that of mathematics. > > > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > www.OrionWorks.com > > www.zazzle.com/orionworks >
