PDA

View Full Version : Rosen flays Bouw



Mifletz
2001-Oct-27, 08:30 PM
This received from Rosen!


Einstein and Mach both came up with different versions of
General Relativity. Neither claimed to be geocentrists. Both
theories are completely polycentric. However, Bouw has
claimed that Mach supports geocentricity more than Einstein.
He states that Mach showed the equivalence of the heliocentric
and geocentric reference frame. So does Einstein. Bouw once
claimed that Mach supported geocentricity exclusively. He didn't
but neither did Einstein.

The question is why does Bouw assault Einstein but
adores Mach. I have never gotten a clear answer from him,
or from you, what significant difference between these two
versions of GR made him choose Bouw as being the "right"
general relativity.

I think that Bouw doesn't like Jews, especially secular oriented Jews.
He doesn't like Zionists, which Einstein was.He may even hate Jews. Since
Mach wasn't Jewish, Bouw chose to use a phoney version
of Mach's theory rather than Einstein's theory. He didn't want to put Einstein's
photograph on his Website because that would show a Jew is smart. He would
rather show a good aryan like Mach then an evil secular Jew like Einstein. In that
way he is Hall, the other astronomy poser. But I have to hand it to Bouw.

I think Bouw is one of those people who feel threatened by secular Jews
because he is a mediocre thinker, and some Jews are smarter than him.
Bouw can do algebraic manipulation without understanding what the symbols mean.
He even forgot that the units have to agree. Einstein was a Jew who understood
physics and math. Therefore, he has to prop up Mach to knock Einstein off his
pedestal. What other reason could he have for slandering Einsten and not Mach?

By the way, I am not putting Mach down. In fact, I think that he may have been
right and Einstein wrong. However, Bouw is too stupid to really evaluate
either of them.

Now THOSE were ad hominum attacks on Gerardus Bouw. It doesn't say much about
geocentrism, one way or the other, but I feel better.

I have listed several real issues and you don't respond to them. I
brought up Bouw's mistake in units, Mach being called a geocentrist,
your idea that the Sagnac effect can't be explained by SR, and
the comparison between Airy's failure and Fizeau's failure. You
never reply to the issue, you just blame evolutionists and
Copernicans for ignoring data, and call them bad scientists. You are
big user of ad hominum arguements.

When I run out of real issues to say, I then resort to ad hominum arguements.
You "Creationist scientists" start with ad hominum arguements, and then
construct lies to discredit the people that you are insulting.

By the way, do you think that Bouw has FINALLY removed "A universe
of atoms" for good?

2001-Oct-28, 12:30 AM
On 2001-10-27 16:30, Mifletz wrote:
This received from Rosen!



I want everyone to note that I sent this to Mifletz off line. I thought that was completely inappropriate to this forum, as note by my admission that this was an "ad hominum arguement." I have to thank Mifletz for posting it, though.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rosen1 on 2001-10-28 19:17 ]</font>

2001-Oct-28, 12:33 AM
The delete button isn't working. Could BB delete my three posts on this issue. Furthermore, I changed my mind. I am now sorry that I sent Mifletz that message. I didn't expect him to post it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rosen1 on 2001-10-28 19:20 ]</font>

Roy Batty
2001-Oct-29, 08:24 AM
Posting an individuals private email on a public BB is very bad form. Says a lot about Mifletz's debating style methinks /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

DStahl
2001-Oct-29, 08:36 AM
Mifletz has posted a couple of my emails to him also. (Although now that I think about it one was sent to Dunash--grr, I can't keep them straight!) Anyway, if you email any of the geocentrists, don't say anything you don't want to see later! Rosen, I'm sorry your private communication got outed, but I don't think you have anything to apologize for.

Mr. X
2001-Oct-29, 08:53 PM
Rosen1 is absolutely right. It is neither appropriate nor is it acceptable to post publicly private conversations.

Just wanted to say this and I will voluntarily ignore what was said here by Mifletz.

Please disregard whatever was said by Mifletz.

Sean
2001-Oct-29, 10:27 PM
Am I correct in reading mifletz argument that He is being atacked rather than his positions? can anyone see points where he has been attacked? I want to exclude the attacks later in posts where people complain about his failure to respond to anything. Rather any time where someone has had an initial posting of Mifletz is a bozo rather than trying to address his issues.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sean on 2001-10-30 09:43 ]</font>

Jim
2001-Oct-30, 11:30 AM
When you think about it, isn't this really the ultimate in Trolling? Not only does he post and run, but he posts someone else's message!

BTW, I disagree that Rosen's message was (necessarily) ad hominem. I think the context and purpose need to be considered, ie, why does Bouw embrace Mach and ignore Einstein? Lacking any credible scientific basis for the difference in acceptance, Rosen's analysis is valid and does bear on the plausibility the reader gives to Buow's arguments.

Do we ignore the possibility that someone's position is based on bigotry because such a suggestion might be considered ad hominem?

2001-Oct-30, 07:56 PM
[
BTW, I disagree that Rosen's message was (necessarily) ad hominem. I think the context and purpose need to be considered, ie, why does Bouw embrace /i>?
[/quote]

It's ad hominum because it really doesn't relate to the validity of geocentricity. He can be bigoted and still be correct. The fact is, he makes incorrect statements concerning science. However, that has only causal connection with bigotry.

You might say that the bigotry is merely the causal description in a particular inertial frame, while the scientific statements are covariantly wrong /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rosen1 on 2001-10-30 14:58 ]</font>

Jim
2001-Oct-31, 11:43 AM
"It's ad hominum because it really doesn't relate to the validity of geocentricity. He can be bigoted and still be correct. The fact is, he makes incorrect statements concerning science. However, that has only causal connection with bigotry."

Okay, okay, you're a rotten SOB who resorts to ad hom attacks. Who am I to argue?

(Actually, my point was that he has been shown to be wrong on several points - even if by a rotten SOB - and still holds to his beliefs. If all scientific evidence fails to support a belief, then personal prejudice may explain continued adherence to it. I don't consider using that as a basis for understanding the adherence to be ad hom; using it to attack the individual for those beliefs would be. "I think you hold to your position because you dislike the opposition." vs "You don't like the opposition, therefore you're wrong." Semantics.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2001-10-31 06:53 ]</font>

Azpod
2001-Nov-01, 02:14 AM
Sorry, but even I am floored that Mifletz would go so low as to post a private e-mail publically. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif

Glad I never sent him anything. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

StarMan
2001-Nov-01, 07:20 AM
On 2001-10-31 21:14, Azpod wrote:
Sorry, but even I am floored that Mifletz would go so low as to post a private e-mail publically. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif


Well, I guess it says alot about Mifletz.
No need for ad hominem anymore.
Oops maybe this post is...
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif

Matherly
2001-Nov-01, 12:39 PM
Nah, slaggin' the man (woman?) ain't an ad hominem attack. It's just an attack.

It's slaggin' his position because of what you think of him (her?) that's ad hominem.

Fine line, I'll admit, but it does exist.

Azpod
2001-Nov-01, 06:20 PM
On 2001-11-01 07:39, Matherly wrote:
Nah, slaggin' the man (woman?) ain't an ad hominem attack. It's just an attack.

It's slaggin' his position because of what you think of him (her?) that's ad hominem.

Fine line, I'll admit, but it does exist.



So flames are OK, as long as you aren't attacking the position of someone you don't like, but are instead keeping it nice and personal... got it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif Seriously, it is a fine line, but something tells me that the BA looks down on either. Of course, that makes posting fun, since Mifletz doing things such as posting private e-mails publically to attack someone REALLY gets under my skin... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif

I probably should avoid any threads started by him; I'd be less likely to write a post that would get me kicked off the BABB that way! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

_________________
Just my two neurons worth,
Azpod... Formerly known as James Justin

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Azpod on 2001-11-01 13:22 ]</font>

Matherly
2001-Nov-01, 06:34 PM
Well, I never said flamer were fine, per se, and yea Phil's gonna smack you down if you break out the flamethrower.

But, even if you say that someone is a **** and a **** and a ****, as long as you don't make that a basis for your argument it's not a ad hominim attack (just an attack... and Phil will give ya da boot)

ToSeek
2001-Nov-01, 06:57 PM
On 2001-11-01 07:39, Matherly wrote:
Nah, slaggin' the man (woman?) ain't an ad hominem attack. It's just an attack.

It's slaggin' his position because of what you think of him (her?) that's ad hominem.

Fine line, I'll admit, but it does exist.



Okay, as I understand it:

"You stink!" is not ad hominem.

"You're wrong because you stink!" is ad hominem.

And of course both approaches are frowned upon in this community.

Matherly
2001-Nov-01, 07:11 PM
You got it!

Oh, and by the way ToSeek, do you happen to have siblings named ToStrive and ToFind (As well at the step-sibling NotToYeld)?

jkmccrann
2005-Nov-29, 04:27 PM
Having just looked at Bouw's homepage, G. Bouw (http://homepages.bw.edu/~gbouw/) & especially his dissertations on liberalism Stages of Liberal Addiction (http://homepages.bw.edu/~gbouw/stages_of_liberal_addiction.html)

How can anyone in their right mind take anything this `Professor' has to say seriously!

I think his geo-centricism and wherever it came from has seriously dented his cranio-logical capabilities.



Stage four (of Liberalism Addiction)
Total addiction:
The user is heading for rock bottom and is most probably obsessed with lying and deceit, convinced that the end justifies the means. This typically involves criminal activities,...All this eventually shows itself as physical deterioration as the stresses and strains of maintaining the network of lies takes its toll. Among the young, students will drop out of school,....


and on and on it goes.

Seriously, how is it that this person is recognised as a leading geo-centricist? He puts out absolute drivel from what I can see.