vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>>OK, give me a better method for calculating the mass of a spaceship
>>traveling at 97% c, and calculating the timespace deviations if it
>>passes 23 AU from the event horizon of a black hole. I'm sure that
>>your scripture would give me better data than the scientific physics.
>>Get a life.
>
>Prove that your method of calculating the mass at 97% c is valid.  Why
>should I take your blind words?  First you have not shown the main
>point of discussion that the distances to the planets is accurate.  

Sorry, but I don't think that anyone can prove anything to a person
who has invested his entire existence in being right.

>I very much doubt you have proof for any of the physics, chemistry, or
>medical books given your lack of showing even the distance to the
>planets.  You just keep quoting "It has been done."  Anyone can say
>that.  It takes more than a lifetime to even begin to prove all these
>experiments not to mention all the equipment.

The computer I'm working at right now is the evidence that the science
works. What more do you need? It is based on the scientific knowledge,
that knowledge is applied to the matter and it produces results. If it
was as unreliable and unpredictable as you claim, it simply wouldn't
work. Do you know how a DSP in my modem is able to transfer data on
sustained 33600 bps? It's extremely complex maths, and I can't prove
any of it. However, the modem works. I even know some guys who
understand the portware (the admins of some big servers, for example).
If they tried to explain it to me, I would probably understand half of
it, if they skip Mr. Fourier in the process, but _they_ understand it,
they make the equipment work, I just pay the bills. In order to be
able to understand the proof, you've got to have a mind powerful
enough. People don't study that stuff for years because they are
stupid, but because it's difficult to learn, it's very demanding to
understand. It can't be explained just like that, if it could be, then
years of training and education would be obsolete. 

>>No, I can not because you are too ignorant and incompetent to..
>
>Backing out.

Of course I am. I can't explain that stuff to a 3 yr old, and I can't
explain it to you, because you don't have the basics, and you are
totally determined to reject everything I would say, so I'll just
leave you to your holy ignorance.

-- 
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net