FONZI scam verb its way into noun with the noun

Eric Gisse

2009-02-12 15:53:48 UTC

On Feb 11, 12:36 pm, BradGuth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 1:06 pm, Eric Gisse <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 11:38 am, BradGuth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 11, 11:48 am, "Strich.9" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 11, 1:58 pm, Eric Gisse <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 11, 9:38 am, "Strich.9" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 11, 11:35 am, Eric Gisse <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 11, 7:23 am, "Strich.9" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > [...]
>
> > > > > > > > For the nth time, where is your so-called positive result?
>
> > > > > > > Right in your blind spot.
>
> > > > > > Cute, nut no cigar.
>
> > > > > > It is obvious you have again lied yourself into a corner and is unable
> > > > > > to provide a reference for your inane claim that GPB is positive.
>
> > > > >http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/25/11/114002/?ejredirect=.iopscience
>
> > > > > "In April 2007, we presented the first public results of GP-B at the
> > > > > American Physical Society meeting in Jacksonville, FL. As figure 3
> > > > > shows, the geodetic effect is immediately obvious in the north-south
> > > > > orbital plane in all four gyroscopes. The mean 1ó result then reported
> > > > > was -6638 ± 97 mas yr-1, which yields after subtracting the requisite
> > > > > north orrections of +7 mas yr-1 for the solar geodetic effect and +28
> > > > > ± 1 mas yr-1 for the proper motion of the guide star, a geodetic value
> > > > > of -6673 ± 97 mas yr-1, to be compared with the predicted -6606 mas yr-
> > > > > 1; this is consistent with the predictions of general relativity. "
>
> > > > > Important words: "this is consistent with the predictions of general
> > > > > relativity".
>
> > > > > Thanks for playing.
>
> > > > > > Good luck Mr. Crook, keep up the lies. I hope you have not convinced
> > > > > > yourself of your own lies.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > STRIKE TWO!!!
>
> > > > Mr. Crook, you're still citing the same POST-HOC study published on
> > > > the Classical and Quantum Gravity on May 2008, the same study you have
> > > > cited before. I have refuted this several times before, as the study
> > > > is a POST-HOC study. Please do review what a POST-HOC study is to
> > > > avoid making the same mistake.
>
> > > > For the Nth time, where is that GPB positive result you have been
> > > > whining about?
>
> > > Eric Gisse considers yet another false positive as good enough.
>
> > Why is it false?
>
> > > Apparently I'm right about their highly conditional and faith-based
> > > laws of physics, whereas all of their mainstream negative evidence can
> > > be excluded or somewhat lost along the way, just like their DARPA and
> > > NASA/Apollo fiasco that's chuck full of such false positives.
>
> > > If they only could, they'd just as soon kill off any of us messengers
> > > suggesting upon anything outside of their Old Testament
> > > interpretation, and per usual they'd still claim being Atheist that
> > > only act and/or react exactly as a Zionist would.
>
> > > ~ BG
>
> Because it's not sufficiently positive.

That does not make an experiment false. It just makes it less useful.

BTW, GP-B verified geodetic precession to 1% accuracy.

>
> If a test rocket is designed to achieve 10 km/s, and instead it only
> achieves 1 km/s, as such it is not a positive merely because having
> achieved 10% of its goal.

Sorry Brad, your childhood notions about how science works is not
sufficient. The experiment was not any-% short of the goal. It reached
the correct orbit, was tracked correctly, etc. The experiment simply
suffered a problem that made it more noisy than was anticipated.

The results obtained are consistent with general relativity. You do
not get to toss out experiments you don't like just because they
aren't up to your personal standards.

[snip rest]