Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Did you noticed the mention of bevatron in this crap publication? The Bevatron is a venerable machine which had its day in mid-50s. To assign discovery potential to that apparatus in the late years of 20th century does seem abnormal to point of idiocy.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
A website called Pure Energy Systems, in a report entitled "2009 ExtraOrdinary Technology conference report," has this to say about Haramein:

On Friday evening we had a surprise speaker, Nassim Haramein. His working title was "Black Hole Protons".

So do you know anything about the status of his paper? Has Haramein submitted it for peer review and if so, when and what were the results? That article says it should be looked at more closely, so if it's being peer reviewed that's what peer reviewers would be doing.

That reminds me, I did get some feedback on Poplawski's peer-reviewed paper that you asked about, as well as a link to download it for free:

"Radial motion into an Einstein-Rosen bridge" (Poplawski)

Both black hole solutions are mathematically legitimate, and only experiment or observation can reveal the nature of the infalling radial motion of a particle into a physical black hole. Since the two solutions are indistinguishable for distant observers, which can see only the exterior sheet, the nature of the interior of a physical black hole cannot be satisfactorily determined, unless an observer enters or resides in the interior region. This condition would be satisfied if our Universe were the interior of a black hole existing in a bigger universe [21].

He just seems to pull that "What if we are in a black hole?" statement out of the air? But I agree with what he said before that, it's what I've been saying the entire thread: Show me experiments and observations to support an idea and it has some credibility. Without that, it's just talk and in some cases, it may be total nonsense.

I didn't get permission to post the exact quote and source, but to paraphrase the feedback I got, this is the recently published work of one scientist. An independent analysis of the model by another scientist or team of scientists is needed, not just peer review. Peer review may eliminate obvious problems with a paper but it's no guarantee the paper or its conclusions are accurate. The reviewer speculated that an independent assessment of the model may reveal that it's not a very likely scenario. That's my impression also. So now I guess we can see if anyone thinks it's worthwhile to do an independent review of Poplawski's work.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Did you noticed the mention of bevatron in this crap publication? The Bevatron is a venerable machine which had its day in mid-50s. To assign discovery potential to that apparatus in the late years of 20th century does seem abnormal to point of idiocy.

Yes I noticed that too. There may be a good reason for that, I think the 1950s and 1960s is when antigravity research peaked.

United States gravity control propulsion research (1955–1974)

American interest in "gravity control propulsion research" intensified during the early 1950s. Literature from that period used the terms anti-gravity, anti-gravitation....

None of the reported experimental breakthroughs published during the 1950s and 1960s have been recognized by the aerospace community.

First successful anti-grav tests were in the late 60's... that we know about...

Perhaps Hitler's R&D was close before that... but that is a whole 'nother can of worms.

I am not offering this to the discussion as dogma, but there are some very relevant concepts discussed in them that deserve to be considered:

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I have to wonder, what do you think you are accomplishing here? Because you post as if you think you're on some lofty mission from above.

Your first post on this thread was all I had to read to realize your head was misplaced between the wrong two limbs:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If you posted this thread in metaphysics I'd probably let it slide but since you posted it in science and technology, then like anything claiming to be science, it must stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?

The reason I want to 'debunk' him is because he's wrong. I teach physics and maths to students, and I think it's important to let them know when something is wrong. It's important to be able to tell truth from falsehood - if we don't, then we lose sight of truth altogether. I don't like it when someone pretends to have insights into the laws of physics that all the scientists of the world are supposedly too dumb to have realised, but in fact has nothing but charisma and a silvery tongue...

I like silly, entertaining stories as much as the next person, that's why I'm a fan of science fiction. I also am a fan of science fact...

First you say his work must stand up to "scientific scrutiny" to be included in the science and technology forum, and then you proceed to post an excerpt of an opinion piece that has nothing to do with science whatsoever. Science is not a spectator sport and "I teach physics and maths to students" doesn't qualify someone to decide what is truth or falsehood, scientifically.

And that was as much as I need to read, to realize you don't even practice what you preach, and you must know nothing of science. You know rhetoric, and you have an already made-up mind when it comes to theoretical physics, as if you came up with all the modern theories personally.

I guess it may have escaped your notice that there is no unified theory in science and that this is the line of theoretical work Mr. Haramein is pursuing, among hundreds/thousands of other individuals. "I teach physics and maths to students" -- would you guess this is an elementary school, middle school, high school, or college teacher blogging? If the person was an actual doctor/professor one might expect them to mention as much considering the work one has to do to earn such a title. Are high school and college teachers of math and physics really that qualified to critique serious unified field theories? Because I don't realistically think the teachers I had in high school and college would be. They could run off a 2-cent opinion that amounts to sour grapes and "I used to walk 15 miles uphill both ways to school," but as you demonstrate with your own link, no actual scientific substance to put their money where their mouth is. And yes, I read the whole blog entry. 1st line of attack: the word "prestigious" in reference to his work. Let that be your first "sign." 2nd line of attack: a legion of blatant fallacies. Then more ad hom.

There are some 7 billion people in the world. There is bound to be someone who will say any damned thing on this planet, and not one opinion is "scientifically" worth a handful of dirt more than anyone else's opinion. Until a theory is demonstrated wrong experimentally you cannot say it is a junk theory, especially when the mathematics already fits with other laws that are already established. If I were you, I would stop worrying about peer reviews and high school teachers and learn to think for my own damned self. I don't have any respect for the intellect of people who constantly defer to others who supposedly know better than everyone. It just shows YOU don't know what the hell YOU'RE talking about.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by AquariusDescending]

I don't like it when someone pretends to have insights into the laws of physics that all the scientists of the world are supposedly too dumb to have realised, but in fact has nothing but charisma and a silvery tongue...

This is the best. This is the real problem. Someone comes up with a simple, elegant unified theory that appears promising from a theoretical standpoint, and everyone who didn't think of it, but wished they had, is jealous, so they're naturally hostile towards it.

Every generation has its geniuses -- and its weaklings who muster to oppose the inevitable paradigm change that comes with them.


"...pretends to have insights into the laws of physics that all the scientists of the world are supposedly too dumb to have realised..."

I wonder what Isaac Newton would think after reading such a remark.

Or Albert Einstein.

Or Maxwell. Or Tesla.


They would probably think something along the lines of, "the world really IS filled with you stupid people after all!"

If you can't own up to the fact that no, you don't know it all, and yes, brilliant people do come along and shatter the way we see the universe every now and then, single-handedly, and within a single generation, then you don't possess the honesty required to really discuss objective science in the first place. You have no room to learn anything really new despite obviously not knowing everything already, unless it's just the old stuff re-hashed or else you came up with it yourself, no doubt.

Originally posted by beebs
First successful anti-grav tests were in the late 60's... that we know about...

How do you define anti-gravity?

If you define it like the paper that you posted:

1. No attempts to control the magnitude or direction of the earth's
gravitational force have yet been successful.

Nothing presented by Boyd Bushman leads me to believe there has been any control of the magnitude or direction of the Earth's gravitational force.

Now if you are re-defining anti-gravity to mean any conceivable force that can oppose gravity, that's not really anti-gravity. The gravity is still there. We are just creating forces which oppose it. That's what Boyd Bushman demonstrates, forces which oppose gravity, not anti-gravity.

There are lots of ways to make forces that oppose gravity. But nobody has been able to demonstrate anti-gravity.

I'd like to be open-minded about anti-gravity and NASA sure would too, because it would solve a lot of problems for them. They got an average of one unsolicited anti-gravity proposal submitted every day and in 2006 even wrote a paper about this:

Responding to Mechanical Antigravity
gltrs.grc.nasa.gov...

Conclusion: Unsolicited submissions of claimed breakthroughs that are based on errant interpretations of mechanical forces are common.

Interpretation...people that have submitted anti-grav devices make all kinds of mistakes.

There's a fascinating story about one of the more famous anti-grav researchers, Podkletnov, here:

Breaking the Law of Gravity

The author of that article tries to track down the truth. Here's what he found chasing down one researcher's anti-grav claim:

Five years ago, while testing a superconducting ceramic disc by rotating it above powerful electromagnets, Podkletnov noticed something extremely strange. Small objects above the disc seemed to lose weight, as if they were being shielded from the pull of Planet Earth. The weight reduction was small - around 2 percent - but nothing like this had ever been observed before. If the shielding effect could be refined and intensified, the implications would be immense. In fact, practical, affordable gravity nullification could change our lives more radically than the invention of the internal combustion engine.

In the United States, scientists affiliated with NASA were thinking along similar lines. They obtained funding to replicate Podkletnov's experiment -

Podkletnov now claims that his results have been verified by researchers at two universities - but he won't name these people for fear that they'll be ridiculed and ruined by the gravity establishment. The team at NASA make no secret of their work - but they have no definite results, yet. And so, at this time, the only credentialed scientist claiming to have witnessed gravity modification is Podkletnov himself.

A man named John Schnurer, at Antioch College, Ohio, said that his homemade setup could reduce the force of gravity by 2 percent on a reliable, repeatable basis.

Schnurer, however, was eager to begin. He showed me his "target mass" (a bundle of seven glass rods), which he placed ceremoniously on a borrowed digital scale. He noted the readout: 27 grams. Then he picked up a small tank of liquid nitrogen - my liquid nitrogen, I realized, feeling a bit pissed about it - and he poured a portion into a Dewar flask. The liquid hissed like oil in a hot frying pan as it boiled violently at room temperature. We waited a few minutes for the clouds of white vapor to die down.

"Now!" said Schnurer. He lowered the electromagnets, disc, and target mass into the Dewar flask, to cool the disc so that its electrical resistance would diminish to zero. Then he placed the lump of scrap metal on the scale, to read the difference in weight between it and the assembly in the Dewar flask. The numbers flickered wildly, responding to thermal currents in the liquid, air currents in the room, vibration from a truck passing on the road a couple hundred feet away, and a dozen other random factors. Still, a substantial weight reduction would make these small fluctuations irrelevant. "We'll call the weight 20.68," Schnurer said, scribbling the figure.

He went to his copper contacts and started manipulating them to send pulses to the electromagnets. I watched the scale - and suddenly felt as if reality was warping around me, because the numbers began changing. According to the scale, the target mass was getting lighter.

"Write down the peak value!" Schnurer alerted me.

The numbers were still jumping, but I averaged them as well as I could. Schnurer grabbed his scrap of paper, did a subtraction, divided the result by the original weight of the target mass, and got his answer: here in this funky little workshop, the force of gravity had just been reduced by 2 percent.

"Let me try that," I said, pointing to the copper contacts. Schnurer stepped aside, looking somewhat reluctant; but when I did what he had done, the results were the same.

"Maybe you should take a look over here," Norman Mauskopf remarked, nodding toward the superconductor where it dangled in the liquid nitrogen. I realized with chagrin that I had been totally hypnotized by the red LEDs on the scale. When I turned my attention to the flask, I saw what I should have seen before: electricity flowing through the submerged coils was creating heat that made the frigid liquid boil. Just as eggs bounce around when you boil them in a saucepan, the superconductor and its target mass were being lifted by bubbles. We weren't measuring gravity reduction, here, we were conducting an experiment in cryogenic cookery!

I pointed this out to Schnurer. He looked annoyed - then indifferent, and I realized that there was still no doubt in his mind, because he was a True Believer. He knew he was modifying gravity. "So we'll lift it out of the liquid nitrogen," he said. "It'll stay cold enough for the effect to work for 15 or 30 seconds. And you'll see, it will still get lighter."

We tried it, and sure enough the assembly lost weight. But it had dragged some liquid nitrogen with it from the flask, and was steaming madly. This was now the source of weight loss, just as damp clothes become lighter as they dry on a washing line.

"John, you're not measuring gravity fluctuations," I told him. "You're measuring the effects of boiling and evaporation."

Schnurer was now visibly agitated. He wanted to run the experiment again. And again. He varied the target mass, scribbled more numbers on odd scraps of paper - after a while there were so many scraps, he lost track of which was which. For several hours he tried every conceivable configuration.

While waiting patiently to see how long it might take him to admit defeat, I noticed a page from Business Week lying on his workbench. It was an article about gravity modification, mentioning Schnurer's work, illustrated with a photograph taken right here in this cramped little hobby-den - although false color and a wide-angle lens made the place look like a futuristic laboratory. Then I scanned the text and realized that this writer possessed the creative powers that I so sadly lacked. He seemed cautious and objective yet made Schnurer sound like a fully qualified scientist, even identifying him as "director of physics engineering at Antioch College."

I queried Schnurer about this. Gruffly he told me that he has never been employed by Antioch University; his workshop just happens to be near Antioch. With several partners, he runs a very small company named Physics Engineering, of which he's a director. Only in this sense can he be termed a director of Physics Engineering.

Around 9 p.m., we called it quits. I didn't enjoy being a heartless skeptic, questioning John Schnurer's credentials and debunking his dreams of refuting Einstein. I just wanted to go home.

So this writer had to point out to the researcher the reason for the 2% gravity reduction he was seeing. And it wasn't really a gravity reduction. I suspect the 2% reduction Podkletnov sees is probably from something similar. These folks are not operating in highly sophisticated labs so it's not hard to find 2% change due to some simple measurement error exactly like what was described in Schnurer's lab.

But I do have to give these guys credit for one thing, at least they are in the lab trying to get experimental results to prove their claims.

Has Haramein ever done any anti-gravity experiments in a lab? And if so what experiments did he do and what were his results? Or is he just talking about it?

As they say, talk is cheap.










[edit on 19-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Ok, cool article.

As far as I'm aware, Haramein is a theoretical non-degree physicist that works with a degreed Elizabeth Rauscher.

He doesn't have to prove himself to you like you want him to.

However, I would love for him to discuss physics with us. I think he knows it better than both of us.

I don't have a degree. Do you?


As for Boyd Bushman... did you watch the entire videos I posted? Did you research him to make sure he is who he says he is?

I, for one, cannot discount what he is saying.

He experimentally backs up what he is saying, as well as showing documents to a camera in his office(presumably).

Can you account for the celt experiment with conventional physics?

What is wrong with his magnet experiment?

By antigravity, I mean a method of cancelling out the effect of 'gravity' with a viable alternative to propulsion and combustion rockets. Such as special effects of magnetism or space-time anomalies.

Originally posted by beebs
He doesn't have to prove himself to you like you want him to.

I'm not his target audience, people like you are who seem to think he may be credible are his target audience. So I'm just asking the questions you should be asking.

However, I would love for him to discuss physics with us. I think he knows it better than both of us.

He knows fake physics which exists only in his mind. I know the physics that can be proven with experiments and observations. You would be doing yourself a disservice to learn wrong things which can't be proven in any lab, you'd be much better off learning things which CAN be proven in a lab. Lab experiments and observations are methods we use to determine which ideas are true and which are false.

I don't have a degree. Do you?

Yes, but it's not because he doesn't have a degree that I have a problem with him. Rauscher does and some of the stuff she says is problematic too, like not knowing what the basic fundamental forces of physics are.

As for Boyd Bushman... did you watch the entire videos I posted? Did you research him to make sure he is who he says he is?

I've watched all those before, I just watched a sampling to make sure they were the ones I've already seen.

Have YOU researched him to make sure he is who he says he is? It doesn't really matter if he is who he says he is, what matters is that he's either incompetent or deceptive. If he doesn't know what the physical principles are at work in his experiment then he's totally incompetent because the physics is well understood and it's not anti-gravity, it's a force that opposed gravity. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's just incompetent, however, others have told me I'm being too generous to him and that he actually DOES know the physical principles at work in his experiment, so he's just lying. That's worse than being incompetent if true. I would think most senior engineers would know these principles so it is possible that he IS lying instead of just being incompetent.

Regarding his drop test, I've managed laboratories with relatively inexpensive equipment that would have taken the human error out of his drop test. You can't count on a person to release two objects at the exact same time as reliably as a machine can do it. And I'd use cameras to record the result, not have a bunch of people sign a piece of paper, they didn't see that he released them at the same time, so maybe he didn't. Another scientific method is called "replication" meaning for a result to be valid, it must be replicated in a separate lab by different people. Has anyone ever replicated his drop test? Different people in a different lab? The story I posted for you in the last post highlights the need for this, experimenters in another lab may detect experimental errors that the initial tester/lab failed to detect. But the flaws in Bushman's test are obvious from his description of it.

Some people think this is antigravity, but it's just an electromagnetic effect resulting from Lenz law, like the stuff Bushman demonstrates:

Lenz effect -Slows down the fall of an object do to gravity

Lenz's Law states that the magnetic field of any induced current opposes the change that induces it. Aluminium is not magnetic but does conduct electricity, so the locally induced currents in the aluminium oppose the field of the magnet. Slowing it down!

Lenz Law levitation demonstration:

A coil of #22 magnet wire (5.5 inches in diameter w/ 100 turns) is energized with 120 volts AC (60 Hz) as it rests upon a .50" thick aluminum plate. As a result the coil will levitate as dictated by Lenz's Law. Unfortunately this design uses a tremendous amount of current and is prone to rapid heating. Further experimentation regarding coil size, voltage, frequency, and materials may improve its operation.

This isn't antigravity as any beginning engineer probably knows, so a senior engineer should certainly know even better. It's just Lenz law at work. So maybe Bushman is a charlatan after all. If not, he's just incompetent, for not knowing these basic principles I'd expect an entry level engineer to know.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
He knows fake physics which exists only in his mind. I know the physics that can be proven with experiments and observations.

Maybe you are simply unaware of the experiments and observations that could be used.

Maybe there is a paradigm shift going on in physics which you don't yet grasp.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
He knows fake physics which exists only in his mind. I know the physics that can be proven with experiments and observations.

Maybe you are simply unaware of the experiments and observations that could be used.

Maybe there is a paradigm shift going on in physics which you don't yet grasp.

I am aware, that particle accelerators have already been used to confirm the relativistic mass increase of protons toward an infinite mass as they approach the speed of light, which have already proven Haramein's paper about protons traveling at the speed of light false.

And contrary to the wishes of some people, even if you call the proton a black hole instead, the same limitation applies.

I noticed you never answered my question about the peer-review status of his paper. It is because his paper violates known experiments and observations that it won't pass real peer review. He already got the only kind of peer review he's going to get, a bunch of computer geeks who don't know physics attending a computer conference with him. And for all we know the only reason his paper got "best paper" award in the physics category could have been because it was the ONLY paper in the physics category, in which case it could also be considered the worst paper in that category. Has anyone managed to find out if there were ANY other papers in the physics category at the computer conference?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I am aware, that particle accelerators have already been used to confirm the relativistic mass increase of protons toward an infinite mass as they approach the speed of light, which have already proven Haramein's paper about protons traveling at the speed of light false.

I personally do not trust your assertion that Haramein's paper has been proven false by any mainstream science particle accelerator experiment.

I don't trust mainstream science.

Mainstream science and technology is under great pressure because of the power and influence of people such as Rockefeller who control grant money and who do not want free energy to emerge.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I noticed you never answered my question about the peer-review status of his paper. It is because his paper violates known experiments and observations that it won't pass real peer review. He already got the only kind of peer review he's going to get, a bunch of computer geeks who don't know physics attending a computer conference with him. And for all we know the only reason his paper got "best paper" award in the physics category could have been because it was the ONLY paper in the physics category, in which case it could also be considered the worst paper in that category. Has anyone managed to find out if there were ANY other papers in the physics category at the computer conference?

Peer-review and who attends conferences are beside the point if you're interested in thinking about physics on your own and discussing ideas.

He may never get a peer-review of his theory. That wouldn't surprise me at all. I don't care. I'm not interested in mainstream peer-review.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I am aware, that particle accelerators have already been used to confirm the relativistic mass increase of protons toward an infinite mass as they approach the speed of light, which have already proven Haramein's paper about protons traveling at the speed of light false.

I personally do not trust your assertion that Haramein's paper has been proven false by any mainstream science particle accelerator experiment.

I don't trust mainstream science.

I happen to have spent a large portion of my professional life using accelerators for research, in my case R&D of instrumentation for particle physics. Even if I didn't believe the textbooks, what I know is that physics works. Feel free to "don't trust mainstream science", what it makes of you is that you are willingly remain an ignoramus. When somebody points out a glaring inconsistency in Harameins "theory", you choose to ignore it. You pretty much commit a voluntary brain mutilation.

He may never get a peer-review of his theory. That wouldn't surprise me at all. I don't care. I'm not interested in mainstream peer-review.

OK, if you don't care about the opinion of people who actually know a thing or two about physics, you really stepped into the realm of irrational. Good luck, and stock up on new age crystals. It's all good.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
OK, if you don't care about the opinion of people who actually know a thing or two about physics, you really stepped into the realm of irrational.

Not so. AlienScientist knows physics. So does Beebs.

I'm really looking forward to AlienScientist's next video. And Beebs' next post. Good stuff.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I personally do not trust your assertion that Haramein's paper has been proven false by any mainstream science particle accelerator experiment.

But that's the whole point about science I've been trying to make. Not only shouldn't you trust what others say, but scientists don't automatically trust other scientists either. That's the whole idea behind replication of experiments and observations. If person A claims something is true, then person B isn't supposed to assume it's true, they are supposed to go prove it to themselves in a separate lab. That's where all the antigravity results have gotten stuck, none of the results have been replicated in other labs. John Hutchison can't even replicate his own results in his own lab.

This repeatability of an experimental result between laboratories is one of the foundations of modern science. It demonstrates a repeatable aspect of nature that transcends labels like "mainstream" or "non-mainstream". Do you have reason to disbelieve independent, repeatable observations and experiments? Whether they are mainstream or not?

If you are unwilling to do the basic research to see if what I say is true, it doesn't demonstrate what I said is false, it only demonstrates that you aren't interested in knowing the truth. I don't expect you to take what I have to say without confirming it.

Mainstream science and technology is under great pressure because of the power and influence of people such as Rockefeller who control grant money and who do not want free energy to emerge.

If they are against free energy, why are they allowing the Atmos Clock to be produced? It uses no electricity or batteries, and never needs winding, it just runs forever without paying for any energy source.

Peer-review and who attends conferences are beside the point if you're interested in thinking about physics on your own and discussing ideas.

If Haramein were discussing crazy ideas on his own over some beers with some buddies I don't have any problem with that. However when he hosts lectures and starts "teaching" nonsense to the public at large, I have a little problem with that, and when he starts training an army of minions or "delegates" to go forth and spew his nonsense I have an even bigger problem with that.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Do you have reason to disbelieve independent, repeatable observations and experiments?

No.

I agree with you that theories have to be tested. They do.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If you are unwilling to do the basic research to see if what I say is true, it doesn't demonstrate what I said is false, it only demonstrates that you aren't interested in knowing the truth.

All the stuff you post about science is not of interest to me because of your attitude. Your attitude indicates to me a lack of imagination and a lack of humility. I'm not interested enough in your science to go read up on it and see whether it sounds right to me. I have other research I'd rather spend my time on.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If they are against free energy, why are they allowing the Atmos Clock to be produced? It uses no electricity or batteries, and never needs winding, it just runs forever without paying for any energy source.

I don't know. Maybe because it has nothing to do with oil?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If Haramein were discussing crazy ideas on his own over some beers with some buddies I don't have any problem with that. However when he hosts lectures and starts "teaching" nonsense to the public at large, I have a little problem with that, and when he starts training an army of minions or "delegates" to go forth and spew his nonsense I have an even bigger problem with that.

Feeling the way you do, you're doing exactly what you should be doing. You think he's doing harm.

I don't. I think he's doing great things.

Of course, I'm not a scientist.

Originally posted by beebs
What if the particles in the accelerator are already spinning at the speed of light, and we are unknowingly trying to accelerate them even faster, to a relative speed of light only relevant to our planet?

You don't have to guess. Particles in the accelerator are moving in tightly controlled conditions and no, they aren't spinning at the speed of light.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
OK, if you don't care about the opinion of people who actually know a thing or two about physics, you really stepped into the realm of irrational.

Not so. AlienScientist knows physics. So does Beebs.

What makes you think Beebs knows any physics? From where I stand, it looks like he's a complete zero in that area.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What makes you think Beebs knows any physics? From where I stand, it looks like he's a complete zero in that area.

Now your arrogance is becoming comical!!

You are amazing!!

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What makes you think Beebs knows any physics? From where I stand, it looks like he's a complete zero in that area.

Now your arrogance is becoming comical!!

Sorry but it's a plain statement of a plain fact. Beebs presented zero expertise in physics. The fact that you attribute him/her with with knowledge in that domain obviously indicates a comparable level of competency on your part. Whether it's comical or not, I don't care.