More Evidence of the Einstein Conspiracy.

When I tried to open a serious discussion about the ballistic theory
of light on sci.astro.research I received no reply. Having inquired
several times as to why, I again received no reply. The moderators
didn't even have the courtesy to provide a reason for not posting my
article, even though it is undoubtedly the most important document
they have ever received.

It is obvious that the moderators of csi.astro.research are not true
scientists at all but typical religious fanatics indoctrinated with
Einsteiniana.

Genuine scientists will always discuss topics sensibly no matter how
controversial. The facts that I presented are based on scientific
evidence that can be checked by anyone. If they can be shown to be
wrong, I would like the moderators of sci.astro.research to tell the
world how and why.
I can only assume that the moderators are determined to silence any
criticism of Einstein in order to hide the obvious truth that the
whole of astronomical theory is based on a grand fallacy.

On Mar 30, 3:01*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
When I tried to open a serious discussion about the ballistic theory
of light on sci.astro.research I received no reply. Having inquired
several times as to why, I again received no reply. The moderators
didn't even have the courtesy to provide a reason for not posting my
article, even though it is undoubtedly the most important document
they have ever received.

It is obvious that the moderators of csi.astro.research are not true
scientists at all but typical religious fanatics indoctrinated with
Einsteiniana.

I have one of two perfectly viable theories as to why yet another
moderated newsgroup decided to ignore you.

1) You were your usual belligerent self. You can't even hold back your
endless complaints about "Einsteinia", whatever the hell that means,
in your supposed thesis on ballistic theory.

2) The moderators see zero value in opening a "serious discussion"
about a theory that has been dead for most of a century due to a
landslide of observational evidence both in cosmology and on Earth
that discredits it.

Of course I would hate to restrict myself to an either/or scenario, as
it can easily be the case that both are true.


Genuine scientists will always discuss topics sensibly no matter how
controversial.

Which, according to your rules, conclusively proves that USENET is not
the appropriate forum for disseminating new discoveries and original
scientific research. Which is what people have been telling you for
more than ten years, among other things.

Plus, scientists are not obligated to give equal time to every fringe
theory that comes their way. Which won't help your meatspace
adventures.

There's a nontrivial number of open access journals with either zero
or nearly zero editorial control. You could publish there. Even the
kenseto has managed to get his spew published in NPA.

The facts that I presented are based on *scientific
evidence that can be checked by anyone. If they can be shown to be
wrong, I would like the moderators of sci.astro.research to tell the
world how and why.

Yes, they can be checked by anyone. The principle assumptions of
ballistic theory have been proven to be false. Repeatedly.

The only spot you think you have a shot of using to your advantage are
in the realm of variable stars, but even then you end up proclaiming
literally every astronomical measurement is in fact wrong.

Your theory is at the bottom of a very, very deep hole. And you seem
to be happy at the bottom, playing in the dirt.

*I can only assume that the moderators are determined to silence any
criticism of Einstein in order to hide the obvious truth that the
whole of astronomical theory is based on a grand fallacy.

You can only assume that because that is the only assumption your self-
imposed worldview lets you assume. You've blocked out the other
choices.

That's what happens when you spend 11 years (so far!) shouting at
USENET with nothing to show for it.

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| When I tried to open a serious discussion about the ballistic theory
| of light on sci.astro.research I received no reply. Having inquired
| several times as to why, I again received no reply. The moderators
| didn't even have the courtesy to provide a reason for not posting my
| article, even though it is undoubtedly the most important document
| they have ever received.
|
| It is obvious that the moderators of csi.astro.research are not true
| scientists at all but typical religious fanatics indoctrinated with
| Einsteiniana.
|
| Genuine scientists will always discuss topics sensibly no matter how
| controversial.

Genuine scientists will always discuss topics sensibly instead of
obstinately and childishly refusing to use Kepler's equation and
insisting extrapolation of accumulated error is "better".


| The facts that I presented are based on scientific
| evidence that can be checked by anyone. If they can be shown to be
| wrong, I would like the moderators of sci.astro.research to tell the
| world how and why.
| I can only assume that the moderators are determined to silence any
| criticism of Einstein in order to hide the obvious truth that the
| whole of astronomical theory is based on a grand fallacy.
|
|
The whole point of a moderated group is censorship and bigotry!
But anyway, the astro groups are more interested in photography
and who has the most expensive telescope eyepiece than science.
They want a fireworks display to say "Oooh" and "Ahhhh" at.

Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
When I tried to open a serious discussion about the ballistic theory
of light on sci.astro.research I received no reply. Having inquired
several times as to why, I again received no reply. The moderators
didn't even have the courtesy to provide a reason for not posting my
article, even though it is undoubtedly the most important document
they have ever received.

What email address did you use? A fake email, such as the one you use to
post here, probably means it goes straight into an unread dead folder or is
deleted automatically.

The moderators of a newsgroup are under no obligation to reply to
submissions they do not wish to accept, nor are they obliged to enter into a
correspondence with you for any reason unless they choose to.

Finally, and I speak from experience, some newsfeeds such as giganews have
misconfigured various moderated groups, and a message submitted via your
newsreader will not go through. They can and do accept submissions via
email, however.


It is obvious that the moderators of csi.astro.research are not true
scientists at all but typical religious fanatics indoctrinated with
Einsteiniana.

Genuine scientists will always discuss topics sensibly no matter how
controversial. The facts that I presented are based on scientific
evidence that can be checked by anyone. If they can be shown to be
wrong, I would like the moderators of sci.astro.research to tell the
world how and why.
I can only assume that the moderators are determined to silence any
criticism of Einstein in order to hide the obvious truth that the
whole of astronomical theory is based on a grand fallacy.

Yes, of course they are. I receive a payment of £100/month to keep silent
about the conspiracy. Although the moderators undoubtedly get more (I am
jealous, very jealous) from conspiracy HQ, they are also probably aware of
the Crackpot Index.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

See 18,19,20, and 34.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
When I tried to open a serious discussion about the ballistic theory
of light on sci.astro.research I received no reply. Having inquired
several times as to why, I again received no reply. The moderators
didn't even have the courtesy to provide a reason for not posting my
article, even though it is undoubtedly the most important document
they have ever received.

It is obvious that the moderators of csi.astro.research are not true
scientists at all but typical religious fanatics indoctrinated with
Einsteiniana.

Genuine scientists will always discuss topics sensibly no matter how
controversial. The facts that I presented are based on scientific
evidence that can be checked by anyone. If they can be shown to be
wrong, I would like the moderators of sci.astro.research to tell the
world how and why.
I can only assume that the moderators are determined to silence any
criticism of Einstein in order to hide the obvious truth that the
whole of astronomical theory is based on a grand fallacy.

I see stuff on sci.astro.research that looks similar to, and about as crazy
as, yours, submitted by someone styling himself as "Rabbo" who used
ellipsis-type fake email addresses. There are no replies, but that may be
because people did not find anything worthy of reply.

Elsewhere I did find postings attributed to Henry Wilson. If that is you
then your stuff is getting there.

I was amused by the threat of legal action against the moderators if your
stuff (or Rabbo's stuff--let's be clear on that) is not published... I'd
like you or Rabbo to keep us posted on the progress of your or Rabbo's
lawsuit through the courts.

By the way, sometimes for no obvious reason newsgroup postings get lost in
cyberspace. It has happened to me, and maybe that is what is happening to
you.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

On Mar 31, 2:58*am, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
[...]

Yes, of course they are. *I receive a payment of £100/month to keep silent
about the conspiracy. *Although the moderators undoubtedly get more (I am
jealous, very jealous) from conspiracy HQ, they are also probably aware of
the Crackpot Index.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

See 18,19,20, and 34.

And especially 36.


--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 31, 2:58 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
[...]

Yes, of course they are. I receive a payment of £100/month to keep
silent about the conspiracy. Although the moderators undoubtedly get
more (I am jealous, very jealous) from conspiracy HQ, they are also
probably aware of the Crackpot Index.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

See 18,19,20, and 34.

And especially 36.

Izzat with or without the show trials fantasy?

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

On Mar 31, 7:46*am, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
When I tried to open a serious discussion about the ballistic theory
of light on sci.astro.research I received no reply. Having inquired
several times as to why, I again received no reply. The moderators
didn't even have the courtesy to provide a reason for not posting my
article, even though it is undoubtedly the most important document
they have ever received.

It is obvious that the moderators of csi.astro.research are not true
scientists at all but typical religious fanatics indoctrinated with
Einsteiniana.

Genuine scientists will always discuss topics sensibly no matter how
controversial. The facts that I presented are based on *scientific
evidence that can be checked by anyone. If they can be shown to be
wrong, I would like the moderators of sci.astro.research to tell the
world how and why.
I can only assume that the moderators are determined to silence any
criticism of Einstein in order to hide the obvious truth that the
whole of astronomical theory is based on a grand fallacy.

I see stuff on sci.astro.research that looks similar to, and about as crazy
as, yours, submitted by someone styling himself as "Rabbo" who used
ellipsis-type fake email addresses. * There are no replies, but that may be
because people did not find anything worthy of reply.

That's him.

His actual name is Ralph Rabbidge. He posts under a few fake names.

[...]

On Mar 30, 5:01*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
When I tried to open a serious discussion about the ballistic theory
of light on sci.astro.research I received no reply. Having inquired
several times as to why, I again received no reply. The moderators
didn't even have the courtesy to provide a reason for not posting my
article, even though it is undoubtedly the most important document
they have ever received.

It is obvious that the moderators of csi.astro.research are not true
scientists at all but typical religious fanatics indoctrinated with
Einsteiniana.

Genuine scientists will always discuss topics sensibly no matter how
controversial.

Bull. The whole point of a moderated group is *moderation*, which
means there is editorial control over which topics get displayed.

Ralph is claiming that "genuine scientists do not moderate", which is
a specious and foolish statement.

The facts that I presented are based on *scientific
evidence that can be checked by anyone. If they can be shown to be
wrong, I would like the moderators of sci.astro.research to tell the
world how and why.
*I can only assume that the moderators are determined to silence any
criticism of Einstein in order to hide the obvious truth that the
whole of astronomical theory is based on a grand fallacy.

It is a marker of an irreversible slide when a crank perceives being
ignored to be evidence of conspiratorial suppression. Pathological
egotism cannot tolerate the notion that one's ideas are not earth-
shaking or -- worse -- simply uninteresting. It leads to the
detachment from reality that people like Ken Seto and John Armistead
have suffered, the kind where their families worry about them and
ponder whether it's time to put them in managed care.

On Mar 30, 7:10*pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
The whole point of a moderated group is censorship and bigotry!

No, the whole point of a moderated group is moderation and quality
control.

Now, you may equate moderation and quality control with censorship and
bigotry, and if you do not wish to participate in that, then don't.
There are those who, in a free market, *do* want those and it is for
that market that the service is provided. You certainly have the
option to both publish in an unmoderated channel and to subscribe only
to unmoderated channels, as a personal preference. Your rant that *no*
channel should be moderated, or that moderated channels should be
seized and converted to unmoderated ones will be summarily ignored.