In article <00f5b367-0597-4394-8236-777ed350d201***a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Sue... says...

[snip]

>The Dual Nature of Light as Reflected in the Nobel Archives
>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...icles/ekspong/
>>
>> You gave this link already. To which I replied:
>>
>>>> Well, I didn't find it there. So I think this is an example of the complaint
>> >> others made about your posts: you give links to articles that are not even
>> >> relevant.
>> >>
>>>>How was a list of Nobel prizes supposed to explain why Einstien never called
>>it
>> >> "virtually inertial"??
>>
>> And did you have an answer to this at all? The text that follows certainly
>> wasn't one. It is on a completely different topic.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> ><< as Einstein became painfully aware, is that there
>> >really is nothing in it [ 4x4 metric ] that ties the 6 components of
>> >the
>> >electric and magnetic fields to the 10 components of
>> >the ordinary metric tensor that describes gravitation,
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> And do you have MIME encoding turned on.
>> >No
>>
>> I think you do, and don't know it. After all: mere word-wrap is not enough to
>> explain how NOT got transmogrified into:
>
>I'd say you'd rather play with computers than justify
>why you are assuming Newton's 300 year old "light corpuscles"
>when Einstein showed there was no coupling 80 years ago.

And I'd say you just proved how little inclination you have to scientific
reasoning with that fallacious conclusion.

First of all, I never _did_ "assume Newton's 300 year old 'light copuscles'. The
photons of modern day QM and QED specifically are NOT the same as Newton's
corpuscles.

You must have me confused with some other poster. If you would learn to use your
newclient you might avoid embarassing yourself with such confusion.

[snip]