Comments on: FTL Neutrinos? Einstein Can Rest Easy

By: BillyJoe7

BillyJoe7 — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:35:18 +0000

Of course I did.
Apparently you don’t understand side references.
Oh well…

By: cwfong

cwfong — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:30:24 +0000

What an evasive little bobber and weaver you are, BJ7. I made no reference on this post to the modern synthesis. And of course you now remember reading the article that you had no idea I was talking about when I cited it.

By: BillyJoe7

BillyJoe7 — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:19:41 +0000

I was talking about your alternative to the modern synthesis/neoDarwinism.
I didn’t need to click on your link because I read that article when it came out in the middle of last year. No big deal.

By: cjablonski

cjablonski — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:16:55 +0000

Thanks cwfong, this is pretty interesting, and I’ll be a bit more cautious in my characterizations in the future.

By: cwfong

cwfong — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:51:12 +0000

BJ7, this “friggen’ hypothesis” about the early speed of light should fry what’s left of your brain:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/07/light-traveled-faster-in-the-early-universe-todays-most-popular.html

You skipped over that reference as usual.

By: cwfong

cwfong — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:40:22 +0000

BJ7 squawks:
“How could cjablonski possibly have any idea what you are talking about.”

He seemed to know something about the subject, whereas you seem to know nothing and seem to assume everyone has to be as abysmally ignorant as you are.

By: Kawarthajon

Kawarthajon — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:06:28 +0000

I watched the conference in which they announced the FTL results of their experiments. I have to say that I was thoroughly impressed by the scientists’ presentation. They did not emphasize the FTL results, but emphasized their many attempts to find errors in their work. They appeared to be scratching their heads, wondering what happened for them to get this result. They put their results out to the world, asking other researchers to help them find out what went wrong or if their results held true. This was an example of real science and scepticism at work in tandem and I applaud the scientists’ approach to this problem, media coverage notwithstanding. It is a great story and I can’t wait to hear how it turns out. Hopefully they will get results without the loose cable and have more to talk about soon.

By: eiskrystal

eiskrystal — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:36:22 +0000

Meh, the voices in my head told me that they wouldn’t beat Einstein. I wasn’t the least bit surprised.

Always listen to the voices!

….the voices….

By: BillyJoe7

BillyJoe7 — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:50:30 +0000

cwrong,

“he was as quick to object to an unfamiliar hypotheses (sic)”

What friggin’ hypothesis.
You have consistently refused to delineate it.
How could cjablonski possibly have any idea what you are talking about.

But he nevertheless picked you for a fringy crank, which is pretty good for a first read.
He only got the order wrong:

Cwrong, the cranky fringe-dweller.

By: cwfong

cwfong — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:53:14 +0000

BillyJoe7,
I doubt that cJablonski is as ignorant as you are – that would be hard to beat – but because he was as quick to object to an unfamiliar hypotheses as you routinely are, you may have that knee jerk response in common. I suspect that when he reads the material, however, he will understand it, and you wouldn’t have a prayer in that regard.
You have some value, however, as a subject in the study of the phenomenological nature of persistent ignorance.