I feel a bit bad about what happened to your response since you were
responding to me. I have had one person do that to me on more than one
occasion and I agree it is annoying. As to the critique, I presume it will
be in Physics Letters A at some time in the future.
Before your response I had lots of people send me critiques of van
Flandern's paper. I have not been able to read all of them but here is a
list:
Tim Thompson has this (he is a physicist at JPL:
http://www.slonet.org/~skroger/CEboard/messages/7897.html
Bill Jeffreys, principle investigator for Hubble stellar parallax
measurments sent me this:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/grav_speed.html
There is also an extended discussion amongst a number of knowledgeable
physicists at
http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/PUB/debate
>Although I can not claim to be a relativist (as my field is statistical
>mechanics), I believe it can be justified. I would invite anyone on the
>list whose field of specialization is relativity to comment on this.
>(Certainly Don Page would be more than qualified enough to comment, as
>would George Murphy. Unfortunately, I think they don't participate in
>this forum as possible casualties of the phenomenon that Glenn mentioned
>about the loss of the "powerful thinkers".
Thank you for your acknowledgement that this has happened here. I think you
have been on this board longer than I. While I am not a powerful thinker
either, I was privileged for a while to have been part of a group that
contained some really inovative thinkers. Today we have too many here (on
both sides of the issue)that are merely interested in citing opinion rather
than using data to support their ideas. Frankly, I am thinking of going on
to other lists permanently or maybe starting my own.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution