>Not a single number or mathematical equation. Yep, he answered it
specifically, Specifically answered in such a way that no response or
criticism can be given. <
It's a little silly, Glenn, to take a summary e-mail message and jump all
over it like it's the omission of the century. What you want is a technical
tete-a-tete, but I can't be expected to stand here as a go-between. It's an
interesting issue, and one that requires more study, obviously. But more
heat is being generated here by your grinding of axes than by thermal
runaway.
<<Jim. I like you, but you don't have the technical background to verify
Baumgardner's claim so your support of him is based entirely upon your
faith in him and nothing more. How do you KNOW that his technical details
are correct? You can't unless you go back to school and learn physics and
a very detailed branch of physics at that. Thus, you have faith in John
Baumgardner instead of the hundreds of others who say that John is wrong.>>
I haven't expressed any faith. I've passed along some relevant data in an
interesting discussion. So far, I've learned that you think the numbers
don't add up, that Baumgardner disagrees and has said the details are out
there, and that this is a matter for further reflection for me.
I've also learned there are "hundreds of others" who claim John is wrong.
I'd like to know who these "hundreds" are. You obviously know, or you
wouldn't have said this. How MANY hundreds? And where are their articles
which name Baumgardner and his tremendous folly? Remember, since you are
interested always in SPECIFIC answers, we're talking about Baumgardner's
numbers vis-a-vis thermal runaway. Where have these "hundreds" refuted
Baumgardner?
Jim
Circumstantial Evidence
and
The Darwin Conspiracy