The fate of Harold Aspden

[WilbyInebriated]

It does.
The emptiness of experimental observations in favor of Aspen's theories leads to conclude that he has theories that explain...  no facts!
By confusing a critical mind asking for evidence, with caprices, you ignore what is scientific methodology and I'm afraid that you are not conscious of the religious mood of your behavior.

no, it doesn't...
i said. and i quote: "demanding makes you sounds a bit like an impetuous child, requesting would be more appropriate." and you are going off on something irrelevant to what i posted, while quoting me. ie: i am not talking about his theories, whatever your opinion is on them. i am talking about the simple fact that demanding anything from anyone makes you sound a bit like an impetuous child...

furthermore, my post had no "religious mood" to it whatsoever... i never mentioned religion in any form at all. that is just more of your patently false hyperbole.

tu stultus es. q.e.d.

[exnihiloest]

...
i am talking about the simple fact that demanding anything from anyone makes you sound a bit like an impetuous child...
...

Your remark was off topic. And it is exactly what I said: you are confusing the scientific method requiring evidence, with reactions of "impetuous child".
Normally we would not even have to ask evidence. It should be already provided in the theory, as we can see it when we read Einstein's 1905 paper about relativity. It is the difference between a genius like Einstein and a crackpot like Aspden.
If you see a scientist requiring evidence, as an "impetuous child", the problem is on your side. It is not a "fact" but just a biased view and a subjective and psychological digression. To put it in bold doesn't change anything. Evidence requirement is the only way to make progress in science.
All progress comes from questions, even from scientists themselves. To ask proofs doesn't make the enquirer an "impetious child". We have not to accept what is asserted as a religious indisputable matter.
Science succeeds in convincing the skeptics thanks to experimental and logical evidence. If people as Aspden, Bearden and others totally fail, having only unskilled people as followers, the reason is that they don't make science but gibberish.

[WilbyInebriated]

Your remark was off topic. And it is exactly what I said: you are confusing the scientific method requiring evidence, with reactions of "impetuous child".
Normally we would not even have to ask evidence. It should be already provided in the theory, as we can see it when we read Einstein's 1905 paper about relativity. It is the difference between a genius like Einstein and a crackpot like Aspden.
If you see a scientist requiring evidence, as an "impetuous child", the problem is on your side. It is not a "fact" but just a biased view and a subjective and psychological digression. To put it in bold doesn't change anything. Evidence requirement is the only way to make progress in science.
All progress comes from questions, even from scientists themselves. To ask proofs doesn't make the enquirer an "impetious child". We have not to accept what is asserted as a religious indisputable matter.
Science succeeds in convincing the skeptics thanks to experimental and logical evidence. If people as Aspden, Bearden and others totally fail, having only unskilled people as followers, the reason is that they don't make science but gibberish.

no, it was not. i responded to a specific comment by ted... i wasn't even speaking to you moron. i haven't confused anything with the scientific method... i have merely stated that demanding anything makes you sound like an impetuous child, which it does. if you don't like it, go cry to your mommy... in point of fact, scientific method has no "requirement" for demanding... if evidences are not forthwith, the idea or theory is usually dismissed. which, by the way is something you can't seem to manage or you wouldn't be going on and on about bearden, aspden, et al... tu stultus es... q.e.d.

you weren't taking about "asking" for proof... you were talking about demanding it... again tu stultus es... q.e.d.

as an aside, einstein wasn't a genius, he was a plagiarist. and his theory is wrong...

[exnihiloest]

no, it was not. i responded to a specific comment by ted... i wasn't even speaking to you moron. i haven't confused anything with the scientific method... i have merely stated that demanding anything makes you sound like an impetuous child, which it does. if you don't like it, go cry to your mommy... in point of fact, scientific method has no "requirement" for demanding... if evidences are not forthwith, the idea or theory is usually dismissed. which, by the way is something you can't seem to manage or you wouldn't be going on and on about bearden, aspden, et al... tu stultus es... q.e.d.

you weren't taking about "asking" for proof... you were talking about demanding it... again tu stultus es... q.e.d.

blah blah blah

as an aside, einstein wasn't a genius, he was a plagiarist.

Therefore you ignore not only the scientific methodology, but also science history...

and his theory is wrong...

...and science.
When I read your mention about Einstein, I got the mental image of a pug pissing at the foot of a cathedral.

[WilbyInebriated]

blah blah blah

you respond with a logical fallacy... imagine that.

Therefore you ignore not only the scientific methodology, but also science history...

...and science.

actually you might want to look at history... and the still outstanding refutations of einstein. it's a hypothesis, nothing more. it hasn't been proven. it is a popular hypothesis simply because eddington put his authority and gravitas behind it...

When I read your mention about Einstein, I got the mental image of a pug pissing at the foot of a cathedral.

and when i read your deification of einstein, i had the mental image of a precocious blind fool presuming to be an authority...

rutherford knew it (relativity) was nonsense...

and see c.l. poor. in 1922,'26 & '30 he gave unassailable refutations of the claims of eddington. i.e., that observations of the 1919 south american solar eclipse confirmed einstein's predicted gravitational attraction of light. (poor also documents a similar situation existing with the 1922 west australian eclipse and the claims of campbell & trumpler.)

and herbert dingle's (former president of the r.a.s.) 'science at the crossroads'. that book alone is sufficient to refute the whole gamut of einstein's relativity, both the theory itself and the presumed observational and experimental evidence for it.

and louis essen (he refutes the claim that atomic clocks flown around the world confirmed einstein's "shortening of time" with motion, and he invented the atomic clock...) he stated 1) "einstein's theory of relativity is invalidated by its internal errors", 2) "einstein's use of a thought experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which fooled himself and generations of scientists", 3) "claims frequently made that the theory is supported by experimental evidence do not withstand a close scrutiny"; and in closing he remarks, "insofar as the theory is thought to explain the result of the michelson-morley experiment i am inclined to agree with soddy that it is a swindle; and i do not think rutherford would have regarded it as a joke [as said in 1954] had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science".

ad infinitum, ad nauseam...