No worries, Neville, but thanks for the concern.
I'm really just trying to keep the discussion scientific.
And thanks for the appreciation - it helps.
Regner
Neville Jones wrote:
Regner,
I am concerned that you feel this way and I apologise to you, because
it means that I have not been doing my job properly. I admit that I
have not been following the aether aspects wrt Michelson-Morley, and
that I have only just started to read them. May I thank you for your
initial posting on the subject, which I thought was excellent. Robert's
reply, too, was of very high quality.
Your contributions are appreciated, I assure you. M-M and the set of
associated experiments are fundamentally important to this whole
debate. Try and ignore the stronger tones that are sometimes used - we
are a mixed bunch. (Notice that I was careful to say a 'mixed bunch'
and not a 'mixed-up bunch'!)
:-)
Regards,
Neville.
-----Original Message----- From:art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thu, 01 May 2008 10:25:37 +1000
...
I am spending a fair amount of time open-mindedly investigating the
various claims brought up by this forum
- and I see no reason to call anyone on your side dogmatic or liars or
plain stupid - characterizations I have received frequently in this
forum, either in person or through being a scientist.
