This has to tone down. Personal attacks are unwarranted. The man has an idea and a right to air it (which, btw, you have, Dan).

We all know that repetition of false science does not alter the facts of physics, any more than the repetition of the facts of physics toward an apparent alchemist.

Will the members change their stand? Doubtful, though bullying the contributor is not an answer.

Will Dan change his stand? Doubtful, though bullying around logic to post non-science truth is not an answer.

We stand at an impasse on the Space Science Board. Does anyone here have what they think to be a viable solution?

In the meantime, let’s chill it a little. Per Dan’s request (errantly directed at our resident particle guy, btw), if you have nothing constructive to add, please refrain from posting to Dan.

Now, Dan

This is what is known as a mutual flame-war, and one that I myself have contributed to, but only after your insistence. I’m very sorry your theory is unable to stand up to the current laws of physics, but there is really nothing we can do about it, and the responses you are receiving were asked for. You came to the board, I can only assume for a critique of your idea, and found, at first, polite rejection (I’m impressed with Raoul’s stamina, btw):

An easy test for your theory -- SDAi-Tech1
Comet Tails -- Raoul
Comet Tails or Tales -- p
Comet Tails or Tales -- Tom Brosz
Comet Tails or Tales -- SteveS
Comet Tails or Tales
Absolutely pathetic -- D. Spires

You, however, continue to push the argument, but are unable to counter what has already been posted, merely repeating over and over the same rule of Alaskan street lamps in crystal fogs -- and frankly becoming a bore.

As for R.L., he works in a tiny world and knows of what he speaks.
Raoul is an extremely nice guy, as well as a practicing astronomer.

Now you are emailing me about a flame somewhere (I can only assume you mean here, with your previous comet issue -- which is flameless as far as I can see), and that you are the target. Well, it’s actually your idea that incites the page-dwellers here and, while they continue to argue with what you admit to be perplexing scientific data, you continue to drone on about street lamps in Alaska and their apparent association with comets passing through some mythical crystal field in space. The tones of your dissenters do become heated, but apparently at your request. You demand you must be right, while we demand you must be wrong. This heat you encounter is understandable, as it is based in the frustration of having to repeatedly tell someone he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, while that person argues that the others are obviously wrong because he doesn’t know what they are talking about.

And there lies the difference. Your point is taken and completely understood, where ours seems to zip right over your head. There is nothing we can do about this, other than suggest you:

a. become better educated on you topic
b. drop the topic

But you refuse both -- and that is something I simply do not get at all.

Enjoy your life,
Dan