Response to Keating Critique of Geocentrism

[hecd2]

Alec: If of course, Bob rejects GR, then he is left with Newtonian mechanics considerations, several of which I and others posted and are unanswerable. The earth cannot possibly be at rest in absolute Newtonian space.

In either case, a GR or GR-like metric universe or a Newtonian universe, there is no physical basis on which to claim that the earth is ‘at rest’ and the ‘centre’ of the universe.

Alec

R. Sungenis: Alec has made a pedantic display of theories and terms but he has said nothing that proves his case.

It is not possible to have a sensible debate with someone whose lack of knowledge of the subject under discussion is as obvious and extreme as Bob’s is. Not only is he clearly ignorant about important specifics on this topic, but his general lack of scientific knowledge and his obvious disdain for science would convert this discussion on my part into the education of a reluctant pupil, a task that is far more onerous than I am willing to undertake. One example will suffice. It shows such ignorance of such an elementary and fundamental concept of mechanics, that it, on its own, utterly disqualifies Bob from any serious discussion on matters pertaining to gravitation and cosmology.

  I wrote: “The surface of the earth is very plainly not an inertial frame so it cannot have any special privilege to be at a centre or at rest.” To which Bob replied: “Says who? Where has Alec proven for us in this dialogue that the Earth cannot be the inertial frame at the center and at rest? … if we take the Earth as the ‘local inertial frame’ it has a ‘greater claim for not being in rotation,’ but then, out of nowhere, Alec concludes that the ‘local inertial frame' cannot be 'the earth...unmoving at the center of the universe’ " In other words Bob wants me to *prove* that the surface of the earth cannot be at rest in an inertial frame. Now, anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with classical mechanics and all metric theories of gravitation will know that the surface of the earth cannot represent an inertial frame by the definition of the term, which is a frame in which an object at rest experiences no inertial forces *whatever the source of those forces might be*. Equivalent definitions include a frame in free fall or a frame in which geodesics are classical straight lines in a flat spacetime – all of these definitions are equivalent and the surface of the earth doesn’t satisfy a single one – it cannot be at rest in an inertial frame – by definition of the term.  If Bob doesn't know this, what hope for the quality of the rest of his argument?

  Bob’s entire argument relies on the equivalence of a) the earth rotating with respect to the star frame and b) the star frame rotating with respect to the earth.  This equivalence occurs only in GR. (Note Lense and Thirring produced solutions to the Einstein field equations) and is not valid in an absolute space. Since Bob rejects GR, and cleaves to an absolute space he is left with a logical dog’s breakfast. He can’t have it both ways.

  In truth there is little more that needs to be said. Why flog a dead horse? I leave you with a quote from Bob which displays his disdain for science and scientists and particularly for scientific terms that he quite obviously does not begin to understand: ‘In the end, Relativity and its cousins (Minkowski space, Friedmann-metric, Killing vectors) is [sic] just a desperate attempt to find an absolute when there is none available…God gave us an absolute reference frame when He put the earth in the center, but men think they know better ’. 

  Bob bases his belief that the earth is the unmoving centre of the universe not on science but on his belief in his interpretation of literal biblical inerrancy.  That’s fine, and he’s entitled to have whatever religious belief he wishes, but in scientific terms, his geocentrism has no more validity than an unshakeable belief in pink unicorns.

Bob should have more honestly written: ‘My personal interpretation of the bible is that God gave us an absolute reference frame when He put the earth in the center, but in the 21st C, most Christian men and women know better.’

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

Oh, it figures it would be ultra creationalist Buffalo the fundalmentalist. We already know you don’t like our current Pope John Paul II because he believes in the evolution of man.

Read this: Mutual subordination of spouses is a Gospel “Innovation.”

According to Mulieris Dignitatem:

…“Husbands, love your wives,” love them because of that special and unique bond whereby in marriage a man and a woman become “one flesh” (Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31) In this love there is a fundamental affirmation of the woman as a person. This affirmation makes it possible for the female personality to develop fully and be enriched. This is precisely the way Christ acts as the bridegroom of the Church; he desires that she be " in splendor, without spot or wrinkle" (Eph 5:27). One can say that this fully captures the whole “style” of Christ in dealing with women. Husbands should make their own the elements of this style in regard to their wives…

"The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words:“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church: he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up his own life.

"However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.

"In relation to the “old” this is evidently something “new”: it is an innovation of the Gospel…

"The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The “innovation” of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption.

"However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ,” and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behavior, and customs.

"This is a call which people have to accept ever anew. St. Paul not only wrote: “In Christ Jesus…there is no more man or woman,” but also wrote: “There is no more slave or freeman.” Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?

“But the challenge presented by the “ethos” of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favor of the “subjection” of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a “mutual subjection” of both “out of reverence for Christ.” The measure of true spousal love finds its deepest source in Christ, who is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride.” - Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, On the Dignity and Vocation of Women, Pope John Paul II, 1988, 24. (posted by Charity)

Please read Theology of the Body by Pope JP II.

I love JPII. Read the book

                                              [by  **Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires, The Respect He Desperately Needs **](http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=4742&pid=0&sid=0)[Emerson, Dr. Eggerichs](http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=4742&pid=0&sid=0)

I would love your opinion on it.

Have read the Theology of the Body. No conflict seen. If you really took the time to read the whole text and not pre-judge the title you would see this. I have noticed you do this alot.

It also addresses your first comment on 'innovation".

Let’s move this to another thread.

 

[ISABUS]

hecd2:

It is not possible to have a sensible debate with someone whose lack of knowledge of the subject under discussion is as obvious and extreme as Bob’s is. Not only is he clearly ignorant about important specifics on this topic, but his general lack of scientific knowledge and his obvious disdain for science would convert this discussion on my part into the education of a reluctant pupil, a task that is far more onerous than I am willing to undertake. One example will suffice. It shows such ignorance of such an elementary and fundamental concept of mechanics, that it, on its own, utterly disqualifies Bob from any serious discussion on matters pertaining to gravitation and cosmology.

[snip]

Bob should have more honestly written: ‘My personal interpretation of the bible is that God gave us an absolute reference frame when He put the earth in the center, but in the 21st C, most Christian men and women know better.’

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Go Alec, Go!!!:clapping:

 

[PhilVaz]

Go Neophyte Go, rah rah rah. The kid high in the stands goes http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/cheering.gif

Phil P

 

[Michael_Forrest]

Neophyte writes:

“I know you said you’d ignore me, but looking back I notice that what you said you wanted was to foster discussion. You really didn’t make it clear that because you were in Sungenis’ organization, you were looking to suck people into a debate with him and if they didn’t bite you’d disregard them.”

Is there something in the genetic make-up of those firmly entrenched in your camp that compels them to insult and find the least charitable interpretation of those that do not docilely fall into line? Or is it a matter of environmental factors? I’m sorry for the sarcasm, Neophyte, but try being on this side of the screen (and I write this also for the poor souls only lurking, who may, like me, not really know the science very well, while readily perceiving the insults to our collective honesty and intellects).

This is what you will find in your collective posts (not just you, but Alec, Phil, Miguel and the others): a mish-mash of honest substance, liberally mixed with insult, demagoguery and intellectual thuggery…trying to shame people into agreeing rather than simply persuading with plain information and evidence. Some people may be intimidated into compliance by such methods, but I am not. Such behavior is most often simply a sign of pride and/or fear.

Thankfully, the rest of your post was bereft of these. If you can keep it that way, I will respond to you and also pass on your views/questions to Mr. Sungenis (if that’s what you would like). There was no need to goad me into passing these along.

But let me say, once again, (ad nauseum)…I said from the get-go that these forums are not the best for these kinds of issues, but unfortunately, some people seem addicted to them and will not write more professional, throrough responses…it seems public forums attract more attention, seem more exciting or something, I’m not sure. I prefer articles/letters/books because people have more time to reflect, to remove things that shouldn’t be there, etc…and so, it becomes easier to read and process. That’s all. (continued)…

 

[ISABUS]

Michael Forrest:

I will indeed pass on your views/questions to Mr. Sungenis.

Simple question, why doesn’t Mr. Sungenis want to join this message board ? Why? I think this is a valid question. I would appreciate an answer from Mr. Sungenis.

 

[Michael_Forrest]

Now, to your accusations, Neophyte:

I think I have been quite forthcoming about who am I, what I believe, what my intentions are, who I am associated with, etc. I have hidden nothing, quite contrary to your unkind implications. Go back and read all my earliest posts. From my first post on a previous thread (the one that started everything, and which I mentioned very openly on this thread), I gave my full name, and my association with CAI. Conversely, we don’t even know your name (first or last), Neophyte. You choose to remain anonymous. We don’t know if you work in this area yourself. Are you an apologist? A full-time scientist? In what field? How many years experience? Did I jump to the conclusion that you were somehow being deceitful…or imply anything of the kind?

Next, I am simply trying to “suck” people into a debate? You make it sound as if I am trying to seduce people into Satanic worship, Neophyte. No, I object to that characterization.

Next, yes, I want to foster discussion/debate. But, in case you still haven’t noticed, Mr. Sungenis is the only person who has picked up the geocentrist mantle with any real consistency and depth on this forum….so, if you refuse to engage him, exactly who else is going to respond to you? And your rewording of what I actually wrote is inaccurate….making it appear more harsh. With all due respect, don’t put words into my mouth.

Finally, I have to point out the following quote that I let go previously “I will not admit to any hyperbole: he just flat-out has no idea what he’s talking about.”

Hyperbole is exaggeration. Your initial post was: (this topic is) “something that he obviously knows nothing about.”

If you can’t admit that it is a real exaggeration to say that Mr. Sungenis “knows nothing” about this topic or that he “flat-out has no idea” about this topic, then there is little hope of you ever admitting anything, Neophyte. This was also one of the reasons I was not interested in pursuing things further with you, but I didn’t say it initially for the sake of charity. But, as you seem to feel no compunction about questioning my honesty, I feel compelled to correct your impression.

To be clear, for the last time, I will not accept any more of this. I have no doubt you are a bright person. I have no doubt you are probably a fine person. Perhaps this kind of forum brings out the worst in you just as it does for many people. I don’t know, but whatever the reason, I will not facilitate its continuance, for my own peace and for the sake of everyone else….including you. There are limits.

In Christ,

Michael Forrest

 

[Orogeny]

Michael Forrest:

Is there something in the genetic make-up of those firmly entrenched in your camp that compels them to insult and find the least charitable interpretation of those that do not docilely fall into line? Or is it a matter of environmental factors? I’m sorry for the sarcasm, Neophyte, but try being on this side of the screen (and I write this also for the poor souls only lurking, who may, like me, not really know the science very well, while readily perceiving the insults to our collective honesty and intellects).

This is what you will find in your collective posts (not just you, but Alec, Phil, Miguel and the others): a mish-mash of honest substance, liberally mixed with insult, demagoguery and intellectual thuggery…trying to shame people into agreeing rather than simply persuading with plain information and evidence. Some people may be intimidated into compliance by such methods, but I am not. Such behavior is most often simply a sign of pride and/or fear.

You know, Michael, you have a very different way of dialoging with people. You have been more insulting in your responses than the responses have been to you (I know, I know, I am attacking and demeaning and insulting and … ). Try leaving out the personal stuff and this discussion may go somewhere. If you feel insulted, just let it pass. YOU started this thread and several people have responded. If you don’t like the tone, you don’t have to continue on and the thread will die on its own.

Bottom line is that your tone in this thread is very demeaning and unproductive.

Thankfully, the rest of your post was bereft of these. If you can keep it that way, I will indeed pass on your views/questions to Mr. Sungenis. There was no need to goad me into passing these along. (continued…)

Why are you acting as a buffer for him? Can’t he just join the forum and participate directly?

You can go back to ignoring me again.

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

Michael Forrest << trying to shame people into agreeing rather than simply persuading with plain information and evidence >>

Persuading with plain information and evidence, to wit my links so far in this thread

Judge Overton’s Decision 1981-82 "Arkansas Creationist Trial"

Radiometric Dating Does Work by Dalrymple

The Rotation and Revolution of the Earth

And we learned this stuff in sixth grade

Earth’s Rotation by Polaris Project

The Evolution of Bible-Science: Young Earthers, Flat Earthers, Geocentrists

Vatican Admits Galileo Correct (1992)

Science in Christian Perspective, the ASA

Sprial Galaxy NGC 4603 which is 108 freaking million light-years away

No insults from me this time. And I’m not quitting the boards just yet.

Phil P

 

[Michael_Forrest]

ISABUS writes: “Simple question, why doesn’t Mr. Sungenis want to join this message board ? Why? I think this is a valid question. I would appreciate an answer from Mr. Sungenis.”

Does your computer work? Do you have email? Can you access websites? Do you have a phone? Mr. Sungenis is very, very easy to find and contact, unlike many Catholic apologists I know.

Why doesn’t he want to join this message board? You’re serious? Well, I’ll assume you are. First, I never asked him to. He is an extremely busy man who has devoted his life to the service of God. He has foregone a great deal of money to do what he does, and has a very large family to support. And frankly, if, after reading all of these posts you cannot discern why I may not push him to personally take the time and energy to read and respond to everything that is posted here, then I doubt I could explain it to you. For goodness sake, it is painfully obvious YOU haven’t even read nearly everything from what you have written (I’ve already answered this before, for instance)…and the volume is quite aside from the issue of the spiritual poison present here.

What I have done is simple and legitimate, and if you (and Alec and the others) had the energy and the charity to read it, you would know already. I will not waste more time trying to explain it to people who do not really want to hear, but only crave an opportunity to score points at another’s expense.

Perhaps you can spend some time cajoling Mr. Keating to respond to Mr. Sungenis responses to him and see what kind of success you have, too. My guess is, you won’t get much response to the kind of nonsense that has gone on here. Perhaps he is wiser than I in that regard. This has been a good reminder…

But, because I really wanted to learn something, and also thought others might be interested, I put up with it. Fortunately, I have found a few useful pieces of information…but that is quickly coming to a close…at least for you and a few others. You’ll have to find another pinata. I know that breaks your heart. This seems to be a diversion for some of you, nothing more. That’s sad.

Frankly, I have seen these forums at work on other websites. Unfortunately, they too regularly bring out the worst in people and invite addiction…people stop living real lives and spend all of their time here. That is not a good thing.

BTW… just took a moment to see if “ISABUS” made any more posts I miss…unfortunately, he did.

Among other insults, ISABUS writes: And Michael why are you allowing Mr. Sungenis to make into a “delivery” boy?

Already answered. You haven’t tried the old stand-by “nah, nah” yet, so it’s still open. Maybe next you would like to insult my mother, too? You haven’t tried that one yet, either. I’ve been told that those are VERY effective.

I have to assume you really aren’t bad guys in person…but what are you thinking? Turn off the computer and talk with real people…it will remind you of how communication should work.

God bless you.

Michael

 

[Michael_Forrest]

Alec writes:

“It is not possible to have a sensible debate with someone whose lack of knowledge of the subject under discussion is as obvious and extreme as Bob’s is.”

Alec, do you want to continue, or not? You already wrote on a previous post that it would be your last unless Mr. Sungenis showed up personally. Apparently, you find it imperative for him to personally hit the “submit reply” button.

I will assume you have changed your mind…I’m forwarding on your latest. If you want to contact him for direct communication, he is still very readily available, always has been.

In Christ,
Michael Forrest

 

[PhilVaz]

Michael Forrest << For goodness sake, it is painfully obvious YOU haven’t even read nearly everything from what you have written (I’ve already answered this before, for instance)…and the volume is quite aside from the issue of the spiritual poison present here. >>

That’s nothing dude. You should check out our creation-evolution threads the past 6 months. More insults and spiritual poison than you can shake a stick at. Well I’m exaggerating…and I’m leaving the boards soon enough. Just a couple dozen more insulting, demeaning and spiritually poisonous notes… I did learn one thing, the Foucault Pendulum is the name of that giant creature I saw at the USF Physics building. Cool.

Phil P

 

[ISABUS]

Michael Forrest:

This is what you will find in your collective posts (not just you, but Alec, Phil, Miguel and the others): a mish-mash of honest substance, liberally mixed with insult, demagoguery and intellectual thuggery…trying to shame people into agreeing rather than simply persuading with plain information and evidence. Some people may be intimidated into compliance by such methods, but I am not. Such behavior is most often simply a sign of pride and/or fear.

*Micheal, are you aware of script theory? In an Attack Other script, one disavows shame and triggers it in another by battering that person with information about how correct one is and how incorrect the other must be. **Shame is a response; rejection is a member of what Wurmer (1987) defined as the shame family of emotions, along with feeling distanced, isolated, embarrassed, and humiliated. **You may need to ask yourself if you are experiencing these emotions. (I, for one, am not.) **This is why I think it is important Mr. Surgeirus needs to come aboard ship and be at your side during these discussions. *This interaction has caused you distress-anguish which is the most fascinating characteristic of the affect system. The affect system allows rapid shifts from one feeling to another. You have to be open and available to both transmit and receiving emotional communications or lose the best system for communication about the inmost self.

*Thank you, *
Mary

 

[Michael_Forrest]

Dear Tim,

You write: You know, Michael, you have a very different way of dialoging with people. You have been more insulting in your responses than the responses have been to you (I know, I know, I am attacking and demeaning and insulting and … ).>>

Actually, you are mistaken, I don’t consider your statements (directly above) out of line, insulting, etc. I do consider them to be incorrect, though. You also don’t give actual detailed evidence. I have given many specific examples of what I am objecting to, rather than only making blanket statements like the one you made above. I have also received numerous private kind remarks for being patient in the midst of this forum (and no, not from geocentrists only).

Honestly, I have to wonder if you have read every post. Do you have any idea how many posts I have been responding to? Hve you read them all in sequence, putting yourself in my place? Go back to the beginning and see my tone, see if I insult anyone or respond in any sort of strong way before the insults start from the other direction. If you can find such cases, I would be open to reviewing it. I certainly never want to unfairly or uncharitably deal with people and always try to set things straight if I do.

Tim writes: Try leaving out the personal stuff and this discussion may go somewhere. If you feel insulted, just let it pass. YOU started this thread and several people have responded. If you don’t like the tone, you don’t have to continue on and the thread will die on its own.>>

Well, we simply disagree Tim. First, I would LOVE to leave the personal stuff out. But, I am a human being, and I refuse to allow people to run over me…or other people. I also do not consider it a charity to continually allow people to behave in such ways…someone has to object. As it seems that everyone on this forum is avidly in the anti-geocentrism camp, it is not likely anyone else is going to.

If people behaved this way in personal, face to face discussion, it would NEVER be accepted, and I think most people know that. People are people, regardless of the venue…but this one breeds very bad tendencies for easily intuited reasons. If you don’t like the fact that I won’t roll over for that kind of behavior, that’s your prerogative…just as it is mine to disagree with you. I am responding in much the same way I would if I were in person. If people spoke to me the way that Alec, Phil, you and others have, in this sequence, yes, I would respond in a very similar way.

Also, as you candidly noted, I started this thread, not you, and so, I’ll deal with it accordingly (no insult intended). I’ve indicated a great many times what my objectives were. When I believe those are not being met in any substantial way, I will leave then and not before. If you or others want to leave, by all means, go. I understand completely. No one is stopping you, and I certainly won’t take cheap shots at you if you leave. Seriously.

You write: "Bottom line is that your tone in this thread is very demeaning and unproductive. >>

Thank you for your opinion. But I disagree and people of good spiritual balance that I trust disagree with you as well.

You write: Why are you acting as a buffer for him? Can’t he just join the forum and participate directly?>>

I explained this several times, to several people, Tim. You will forgive me if I am not going to do it again. If you like, go back and reread the forums.

continued…

 

[Michael_Forrest]

You write: “You can go back to ignoring me again.”

I don’t follow, Tim. I explained that I was being overwhelmed with posts, and I couldn’t respond to every one. Your two posts at that point were not particularly helpful in regard to process or substance in my estimation, and so I told you that I would concentrate on Alec (and maybe one or two others, subsequently). I have a family, a job…I can’t sit here ad infinitum. But I looked back at your earliest two posts, and this caught my attention:

“As far as Alec refering to Sungenis as a crank, well, quite frankly, anyone who genuinely holds to geocentrism will be considered a crank because the idea is scientifically preposterous.”

Does this mean that you are personally prepared to debate the issue in depth? I would think so. If so, great, that is exactly what this forum needs (or really, what should be done in a more appropriate venue). But since this post from the beginning, I haven’t read anything really from you. If you think it worthwhile, by all means, give it a go.

In Christ,
Michael Forrest

P.S. I may not be available for a while as I have to attend the wake of a dear friend this evening…funeral tomorrow. Please pray for his soul: William Gauthier.

 

[hecd2]

Michael Forrest:

P.S. I may not be available for a while as I have to attend the wake of a dear friend this evening…funeral tomorrow. Please pray for his soul: William Gauthier.

Michael, I am sorry for the death of your dear friend and I offer you my sympathy.

Alec

 

[shannon_e]

In Christ,
Michael Forrest
P.S. I may not be available for a while as I have to attend the wake of a dear friend this evening…funeral tomorrow. Please pray for his soul: William Gauthier.

Prayers and Condolences, Michael.

 

[miguel]

Michael Forrest:

…This is what you will find in your collective posts (not just you, but Alec, Phil, Miguel and the others): a mish-mash of honest substance, liberally mixed with insult, demagoguery and intellectual thuggery…trying to shame people into agreeing rather than simply persuading with plain information and evidence. Some people may be intimidated into compliance by such methods, but I am not. Such behavior is most often simply a sign of pride and/or fear…

I admit to lightly ridiculing the idea of geocentrism in a couple of my posts, but I didn’t engage in any ad hominem.

As an engineer, I think the proof is in the performance of the flight hardware. When geocentrist engineers demonstrate interplanetary guidance and control of spacecraft, I’ll apologize for my attitude.

I just want to add that my course in orbit mechanics did not make an atheist out of me. It’s a beautiful subject. It gave me a little deeper insight into how God made things…and a little deeper appreciation.

I also want to express my condolences for your friend.

 

[ISABUS]

Michael Forrest:

In Christ,
Michael Forrest

P.S. I may not be available for a while as I have to attend the wake of a dear friend this evening…funeral tomorrow. Please pray for his soul: William Gauthier.

God bless Michael ~ I’ve prayed a novena to St. Teresa of Avila that William will be showered with roses upon his arrival into the Kingdom of God.

Rest now dear one and be assured you are loved ~
Mary

 

[neophyte]

Michael, I wrote the following before I learned of your loss. I’d like to express my deepest condolences to you, and to your friend’s family. I’ll make sure to say a prayer for his intentions, and yours.

…

Mike, I just looked back through the thread, it wasn’t until post 14 that you said who you worked for, and I just missed it the first time through. I wasn’t trying to ascribe any ulterior motive to you, I was just making an observation. If you want to try me for my ability to come across worse than I intend - I plead guilty.

Try looking at it from my side, you said you didn’t really know much about the topic and essentially asked an open question about the merits of his case. There appear to be huge holes in it, I mentioned one and said (vigorously, I admit) that the guy doesn’t understand the subject; I didn’t call into question the state of his soul, accuse him of being a heretic or say he was a piece of dirt. It seems to me that your personal relationship with Bob may be making you a bit more sensitive than is really necessary; if I had a dime for every time someone’s called me a fruitcake I could retire to a private island somewhere (yes, I know what hyperbole is). If the options are ascribing ulterior motives to someone versus figuring he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about, I’d say that writing it off to ignorance is giving the benefit of the doubt. If Bob doesn’t mind maybe you don’t need to mind for him.

Besides, Bob’s done a bit of the same thing, telling his opponents that they obviously haven’t read the latest in 90-year-old physics papers (what is that, if not a fancy way of saying you don’t know what you’re talking about?), and I’ve noticed you engaging in a bit of name-calling yourself. Calling someone’s family background into question is a classic example of ad hominem, and, unless I missed it in another post, so far you’re the only person here who’s done that (don’t worry, I’ve heard that before too, but fewer times than I’ve deserved).

So why don’t we move forward: take the initial paragraph of my last post in the spirit I intended it, and figure that if I really can’t be convinced then I wouldn’t have paid attention on the sidelines and come back trying to sound like I had my hat in my hand.