Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #360661 > unrolled thread

Nuclear testing at high altitudes

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Nuclear testing at high altitudes John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-13 18:44 -0700
    Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 20:50 -0700
      Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 07:49 -0500
        Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-18 16:17 -0700
        Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 22:43 -0700
          Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-19 02:30 -0400
            Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 22:01 -0700
              Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-20 02:08 -0400
                Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-20 20:31 -0700
              Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 09:54 -0500
                Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 00:18 -0700
                  Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-25 20:50 +0200
                    Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 22:20 -0700
                      Re: Nuclear testing at high altitudes "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-26 13:14 +0200

#360661 — Nuclear testing at high altitudes

Is there such a thing?  Would the test puncture a hole in the atmosphere and suck air out?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#360672

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 6:44:43 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:

> Is there such a thing?  Would the test puncture a hole in the
> atmosphere and suck air out?

The following project was an attempt to destroy the Van Allen Belts.  <shrug>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

Luckily, it was not successful.  Instead, a third belt was created from the original two.  If successful, it might be the end of all multi-celled organisms on land due to high incidences of cosmic rays unhindered by the radiation belts.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360702

On 8/13/2015 10:50 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 6:44:43 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
>
>> Is there such a thing?  Would the test puncture a hole in the
>> atmosphere and suck air out?
>
> The following project was an attempt to destroy the Van Allen Belts.  <shrug>

I knew you were arrogant and ignorant, which is always a good 
combination to begin with. But I wasn't aware you were a conspiracy 
theory nutjob.

It's true that Starfish Prime had unintended consequences. It ended up 
disabling about a third of low-earth-orbit satellites at the time.

I suppose you're going to say that this was a deliberate outcome.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
>
> Luckily, it was not successful.  Instead, a third belt was created from the original two.
> If successful, it might be the end of all multi-celled organisms on land due to high
> incidences of cosmic rays unhindered by the radiation belts.  <shrug>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361237

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 7:49:38 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/13/2015 10:50 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 6:44:43 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
> >
> >> Is there such a thing?  Would the test puncture a hole in the
> >> atmosphere and suck air out?
> >
> > The following project was an attempt to destroy the Van Allen Belts.  <shrug>
> 
> I knew you were arrogant and ignorant, which is always a good 
> combination to begin with. But I wasn't aware you were a conspiracy 
> theory nutjob.
> 
> It's true that Starfish Prime had unintended consequences. It ended up 
> disabling about a third of low-earth-orbit satellites at the time.
> 
> I suppose you're going to say that this was a deliberate outcome.
> 
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
> >
> > Luckily, it was not successful.  Instead, a third belt was created from the original two.
> > If successful, it might be the end of all multi-celled organisms on land due to high
> > incidences of cosmic rays unhindered by the radiation belts.  <shrug>
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Sorry, your right I don't know much about this subject- but was simply curious.  Didn't realize it was such a touchy subject where its' use might be construed as tantamount to war.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361269

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/13/2015 10:50 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > The following project was an attempt to destroy the Van Allen Belts.
> > <shrug>
> 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
>
> > Luckily, it was not successful.  Instead, a third belt was created
> > from the original two.  If successful, it might be the end of all
> > multi-celled organisms on land due to high incidences of cosmic rays
> > unhindered by the radiation belts.  <shrug>
>
> I knew you were arrogant and ignorant, which is always a good 
> combination to begin with.

These are only accusations coming from Odd Bodkin aka PD.  <shrug>

> But I wasn't aware you were a conspiracy theory nutjob.

There is no such shit as a conspiracy theory in which either a hypothesis can be supported with observations or not.  Try to understand what science is all about, and the hint is that there is no such shit as a conspiracy theory even if a hypothesis is ever so outrageously politically incorrect.  <shrug>

> It's true that Starfish Prime had unintended consequences. It ended up 
> disabling about a third of low-earth-orbit satellites at the time.
> 
> I suppose you're going to say that this was a deliberate outcome.

No, the main purpose was to blast the ionized particles, trapped by constantly influx of solar wind, away.  Why?  Because of Kennedy's pledge to go to the moon a year before Project Starfish Prime.  NASA knew then it was impossible to go through a radiation belt with that many charged particles since whenever a charged particle hits anything metallic, x-ray would be generated, and no living creatures can withstand that much radiation let alone the microwave-oven effect in the radiation zone.  <shrug>

At that time, the NASA people were not aware of going through the magnetic poles with much less radiation but more fuel supply required.  So, upon the failure of the Project Starfish Prime (which is a very good thing for those of us born around or after that), the only recourse was to fake the manned moon missions.  Faking the moon landing would shift budget allocation from science to deceits.  It is much easier to deceit than science.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361270

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:43:19 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
<koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/13/2015 10:50 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > The following project was an attempt to destroy the Van Allen Belts.
>> > <shrug>
>> 
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
>>
>> > Luckily, it was not successful.  Instead, a third belt was created
>> > from the original two.  If successful, it might be the end of all
>> > multi-celled organisms on land due to high incidences of cosmic rays
>> > unhindered by the radiation belts.  <shrug>
>>
>> I knew you were arrogant and ignorant, which is always a good 
>> combination to begin with.
>
>These are only accusations coming from Odd Bodkin aka PD.  <shrug>
>
>> But I wasn't aware you were a conspiracy theory nutjob.
>
>There is no such shit as a conspiracy theory in which either a hypothesis can be supported with observations or not.  Try to understand what science is all about, and the hint is that there is no such shit as a conspiracy theory even if a hypothesis is ever so outrageously politically incorrect.  <shrug>
>
>> It's true that Starfish Prime had unintended consequences. It ended up 
>> disabling about a third of low-earth-orbit satellites at the time.
>> 
>> I suppose you're going to say that this was a deliberate outcome.
>
>No, the main purpose was to blast the ionized particles, trapped by constantly influx of solar wind, away.  Why?  Because of Kennedy's pledge to go to the moon a year before Project Starfish Prime.  NASA knew then it was impossible to go through a radiation belt with that many charged particles since whenever a charged particle hits anything metallic, x-ray would be generated, and no living creatures can withstand that much radiation let alone the microwave-oven effect in the radiation zone.  <shrug>
>
>At that time, the NASA people were not aware of going through the magnetic poles with much less radiation but more fuel supply required.  So, upon the failure of the Project Starfish Prime (which is a very good thing for those of us born around or after that), the only recourse was to fake the manned moon missions.  Faking the moon landing would shift budget allocation from science to deceits.  It is much easier to deceit than science.  <shrug>

       You are out of your fucking mind, asshole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361346

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:30:24 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:43:19, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > There is no such shit as a conspiracy theory in which either a
> > hypothesis can be supported with observations or not.  Try to
> > understand what science is all about, and the hint is that there is
> > no such shit as a conspiracy theory even if a hypothesis is ever so
> > outrageously politically incorrect.  <shrug>
>
> > the main purpose was to blast the ionized particles, trapped by
> > constantly influx of solar wind, away.  Why?  Because of Kennedy's
> > pledge to go to the moon a year before Project Starfish Prime.  NASA
> > knew then it was impossible to go through a radiation belt with that
> > many charged particles since whenever a charged particle hits anything
> > metallic, x-ray would be generated, and no living creatures can
> > withstand that much radiation let alone the microwave-oven effect in
> > the radiation zone.  <shrug>
>
> > At that time, the NASA people were not aware of going through the
> > magnetic poles with much less radiation but more fuel supply required.
> > So, upon the failure of the Project Starfish Prime (which is a very
> > good thing for those of us born around or after that), the only
> > recourse was to fake the manned moon missions.  Faking the moon landing
> > would shift budget allocation from science to deceits.  It is much
> > easier to deceit than science.  <shrug>
>
>        You are out of your fucking mind, asshole.

Is reality really that difficult to accept?  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361349

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 22:01:09 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
<koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:30:24 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:43:19, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > There is no such shit as a conspiracy theory in which either a
>> > hypothesis can be supported with observations or not.  Try to
>> > understand what science is all about, and the hint is that there is
>> > no such shit as a conspiracy theory even if a hypothesis is ever so
>> > outrageously politically incorrect.  <shrug>
>>
>> > the main purpose was to blast the ionized particles, trapped by
>> > constantly influx of solar wind, away.  Why?  Because of Kennedy's
>> > pledge to go to the moon a year before Project Starfish Prime.  NASA
>> > knew then it was impossible to go through a radiation belt with that
>> > many charged particles since whenever a charged particle hits anything
>> > metallic, x-ray would be generated, and no living creatures can
>> > withstand that much radiation let alone the microwave-oven effect in
>> > the radiation zone.  <shrug>
>>
>> > At that time, the NASA people were not aware of going through the
>> > magnetic poles with much less radiation but more fuel supply required.
>> > So, upon the failure of the Project Starfish Prime (which is a very
>> > good thing for those of us born around or after that), the only
>> > recourse was to fake the manned moon missions.  Faking the moon landing
>> > would shift budget allocation from science to deceits.  It is much
>> > easier to deceit than science.  <shrug>
>>
>>        You are out of your fucking mind, asshole.
>
>Is reality really that difficult to accept?  <shrug>

         You don't even remember what reality is.
Look at how many high altitude tests there were;

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/hane.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests


         The size of the Apollo program was huge,
there is no way the government would have
spent that much money on a ruse.

         You are not the only conspiracy nut,
but conspiracy theories are not your only
problem.
         Any time more than a few dozen people
are involved in a project, it can't be faked,
a certain percentage of people will make
the truth known regardless of the penalty.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361413

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 1:08:38 AM UTC-5, kefischer wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 22:01:09 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
> <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:30:24 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:43:19, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> >
> >> > There is no such shit as a conspiracy theory in which either a
> >> > hypothesis can be supported with observations or not.  Try to
> >> > understand what science is all about, and the hint is that there is
> >> > no such shit as a conspiracy theory even if a hypothesis is ever so
> >> > outrageously politically incorrect.  <shrug>
> >>
> >> > the main purpose was to blast the ionized particles, trapped by
> >> > constantly influx of solar wind, away.  Why?  Because of Kennedy's
> >> > pledge to go to the moon a year before Project Starfish Prime.  NASA
> >> > knew then it was impossible to go through a radiation belt with that
> >> > many charged particles since whenever a charged particle hits anything
> >> > metallic, x-ray would be generated, and no living creatures can
> >> > withstand that much radiation let alone the microwave-oven effect in
> >> > the radiation zone.  <shrug>
> >>
> >> > At that time, the NASA people were not aware of going through the
> >> > magnetic poles with much less radiation but more fuel supply required.
> >> > So, upon the failure of the Project Starfish Prime (which is a very
> >> > good thing for those of us born around or after that), the only
> >> > recourse was to fake the manned moon missions.  Faking the moon landing
> >> > would shift budget allocation from science to deceits.  It is much
> >> > easier to deceit than science.  <shrug>
> >>
> >>        You are out of your fucking mind, asshole.
> >
> >Is reality really that difficult to accept?  <shrug>
> 
>          You don't even remember what reality is.
> Look at how many high altitude tests there were;
> 
> http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/hane.html
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests
> 
> 
>          The size of the Apollo program was huge,
> there is no way the government would have
> spent that much money on a ruse.
> 
>          You are not the only conspiracy nut,
> but conspiracy theories are not your only
> problem.
>          Any time more than a few dozen people
> are involved in a project, it can't be faked,
> a certain percentage of people will make
> the truth known regardless of the penalty.

If you want a better history- compare the Apollo program with the Soviet Union program at that time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361684

On 8/20/2015 12:01 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:30:24 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:43:19, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> There is no such shit as a conspiracy theory in which either a
>>> hypothesis can be supported with observations or not.  Try to
>>> understand what science is all about, and the hint is that there is
>>> no such shit as a conspiracy theory even if a hypothesis is ever so
>>> outrageously politically incorrect.  <shrug>
>>
>>> the main purpose was to blast the ionized particles, trapped by
>>> constantly influx of solar wind, away.  Why?  Because of Kennedy's
>>> pledge to go to the moon a year before Project Starfish Prime.  NASA
>>> knew then it was impossible to go through a radiation belt with that
>>> many charged particles since whenever a charged particle hits anything
>>> metallic, x-ray would be generated, and no living creatures can
>>> withstand that much radiation let alone the microwave-oven effect in
>>> the radiation zone.  <shrug>
>>
>>> At that time, the NASA people were not aware of going through the
>>> magnetic poles with much less radiation but more fuel supply required.
>>> So, upon the failure of the Project Starfish Prime (which is a very
>>> good thing for those of us born around or after that), the only
>>> recourse was to fake the manned moon missions.  Faking the moon landing
>>> would shift budget allocation from science to deceits.  It is much
>>> easier to deceit than science.  <shrug>
>>
>>         You are out of your fucking mind, asshole.
>
> Is reality really that difficult to accept?  <shrug>
>

There is no point in trying to reason away a delusion, Koobee. That's 
why they're called delusions. People who are broken in the head cannot 
REASON their way to fixing what's broken.

Just keep working with your therapist, who may or may not find a way to 
help you out, but at least might make things manageable so that you can 
function.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361780

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 7:55:01 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > There is no such shit as a conspiracy theory in which either a
> > hypothesis can be supported with observations or not.  Try to
> > understand what science is all about, and the hint is that there is
> > no such shit as a conspiracy theory even if a hypothesis is ever so
> > outrageously politically incorrect.  <shrug>
>
> > the main purpose was to blast the ionized particles, trapped by
> > constantly influx of solar wind, away.  Why?  Because of Kennedy's
> > pledge to go to the moon a year before Project Starfish Prime.  NASA
> > knew then it was impossible to go through a radiation belt with that
> > many charged particles since whenever a charged particle hits anything
> > metallic, x-ray would be generated, and no living creatures can
> > withstand that much radiation let alone the microwave-oven effect in
> > the radiation zone.  <shrug>
>
> > At that time, the NASA people were not aware of going through the
> > magnetic poles with much less radiation but more fuel supply required.
> > So, upon the failure of the Project Starfish Prime (which is a very
> > good thing for those of us born around or after that), the only
> > recourse was to fake the manned moon missions.  Faking the moon landing
> > would shift budget allocation from science to deceits.  It is much
> > easier to deceit than science.  <shrug>
>
> There is no point in trying to reason away a delusion, Koobee.

What delusion?  <shrug>

> That's why they're called delusions.

Like Odd Bodkin aka PD's postings.  <shrug>

> People who are broken in the head cannot REASON their way to fixing
> what's broken.

That is fully agreed by Koobee Wublee, and that is why the Einstien dingleberries are able to bully and bullshit their nonsense in the past 100 years.  <shrug>

> Just keep working with your therapist,

What therapist?  <shrug>

> who may or may not find a way to help you out,

Help what?  <shrug>

> [more delusional crap snipped]

Odd Bodkin aka PD is really out in the left field, and that is not Koobee Wublee's problem.  Thank God for that.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361823

On 25.08.2015 09:18, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 7:55:01 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> There is no such shit as a conspiracy theory in which either a
>>> hypothesis can be supported with observations or not.  Try to
>>> understand what science is all about, and the hint is that there is
>>> no such shit as a conspiracy theory even if a hypothesis is ever so
>>> outrageously politically incorrect.  <shrug>
>>
>>> the main purpose was to blast the ionized particles, trapped by
>>> constantly influx of solar wind, away.  Why?  Because of Kennedy's
>>> pledge to go to the moon a year before Project Starfish Prime.  NASA
>>> knew then it was impossible to go through a radiation belt with that
>>> many charged particles since whenever a charged particle hits anything
>>> metallic, x-ray would be generated, and no living creatures can
>>> withstand that much radiation let alone the microwave-oven effect in
>>> the radiation zone.  <shrug>
>>
>>> At that time, the NASA people were not aware of going through the
>>> magnetic poles with much less radiation but more fuel supply required.
>>> So, upon the failure of the Project Starfish Prime (which is a very
>>> good thing for those of us born around or after that), the only
>>> recourse was to fake the manned moon missions.  Faking the moon landing
>>> would shift budget allocation from science to deceits.  It is much
>>> easier to deceit than science.  <shrug>
>>
>> There is no point in trying to reason away a delusion, Koobee.
>
> What delusion?  <shrug>

The delusion you demonstrated above was an eye opener for me.
Now I know that you are but a conspiracy theory crank.
Your delusions trumps experimental evidence.

That explains why you can keep claiming what is proven to be wrong.

Here is one example (amongst many):

December 2008 Koobee Wublee wrote (and repeated several times):
| The stellar aberration is an
| application of the Galilean transform for low speeds.  Since the
| Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the velocity
| of the star is very much important in determining this aberration.

The fact is that ever since Bradley in 1725 for the fist time
measured the stellar aberration, it has been experimentally
verified over and over again that stellar aberration depends
_only_ on the change of the velocity of the Earth, and of
the speed of light. The velocity of the star contributes
nothing to stellar aberration.
The fact that the stellar aberration is the same for both
components of a binary makes it blazingly clear that
the velocities of the components are irrelevant.

But delusions can't be reasoned away.

https://paulba.no/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361871

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 11:50:55 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > There is no such shit as a conspiracy theory in which either a
> > hypothesis can be supported with observations or not.  Try to
> > understand what science is all about, and the hint is that there is
> > no such shit as a conspiracy theory even if a hypothesis is ever so
> > outrageously politically incorrect.  <shrug>
>
> > the main purpose was to blast the ionized particles, trapped by
> > constantly influx of solar wind, away.  Why?  Because of Kennedy's
> > pledge to go to the moon a year before Project Starfish Prime.  NASA
> > knew then it was impossible to go through a radiation belt with that
> > many charged particles since whenever a charged particle hits anything
> > metallic, x-ray would be generated, and no living creatures can
> > withstand that much radiation let alone the microwave-oven effect in
> > the radiation zone.  <shrug>
>
> > At that time, the NASA people were not aware of going through the
> > magnetic poles with much less radiation but more fuel supply required.
> > So, upon the failure of the Project Starfish Prime (which is a very
> > good thing for those of us born around or after that), the only
> > recourse was to fake the manned moon missions.  Faking the moon landing
> > would shift budget allocation from science to deceits.  It is much
> > easier to deceit than science.  <shrug>
> 
> The delusion you demonstrated above was an eye opener for me.

To the very shallow of the shallow minds, Koobee Wublee is not surprised as so.  <shrug>

> Now I know that you are but a conspiracy theory crank.

First, Paul has to define and understand what a conspiracy theory is.  In reality, there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory among scientific methods.  <shrug>

> Your delusions trumps experimental evidence.

Koobee Wublee stands by scientific method.  <shrug>

> That explains why you can keep claiming what is proven to be wrong.

Now, Koobee Wublee is getting very excited.  <shrug>

> Here is one example (amongst many):
> 
> December 2008 Koobee Wublee wrote (and repeated several times):
> | The stellar aberration is an
> | application of the Galilean transform for low speeds.  Since the
> | Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the velocity
> | of the star is very much important in determining this aberration.
> 
> The fact is that ever since Bradley in 1725 for the fist time
> measured the stellar aberration, it has been experimentally
> verified over and over again that stellar aberration depends
> _only_ on the change of the velocity of the Earth, and of
> the speed of light. The velocity of the star contributes
> nothing to stellar aberration.

Paul's understanding is just wrong.  Aberration is strictly a phenomenon of velocity thing not of acceleration (change of velocity).  <shrug>

> The fact that the stellar aberration is the same for both
> components of a binary makes it blazingly clear that
> the velocities of the components are irrelevant.

So, Paul is the one that is delusional.  <shrug>

> But delusions can't be reasoned away.
>
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf

Paul's counter delusion can be found at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light

Einstein dingleberries are just so fvcking silly!  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361887

On 26.08.2015 07:20, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 11:50:55 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> Now I know that you [Koobee Wublee] are but a conspiracy theory crank.
>> Your delusions trumps experimental evidence.
>> That explains why you can keep claiming what is proven to be wrong.
>
> Now, Koobee Wublee is getting very excited.  <shrug>
>
>> Here is one example (amongst many):
>>
>> December 2008 Koobee Wublee wrote (and repeated several times):
>> | The stellar aberration is an
>> | application of the Galilean transform for low speeds.  Since the
>> | Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the velocity
>> | of the star is very much important in determining this aberration.
>>
>> The fact is that ever since Bradley in 1725 for the fist time
>> measured the stellar aberration, it has been experimentally
>> verified over and over again that stellar aberration depends
>> _only_ on the change of the velocity of the Earth, and of
>> the speed of light. The velocity of the star contributes
>> nothing to stellar aberration.
>
> Paul's understanding is just wrong.  Aberration is strictly
> a phenomenon of velocity thing not of acceleration (change of velocity).  <shrug>
>
>> The fact that the stellar aberration is the same for both
>> components of a binary makes it blazingly clear that
>> the velocities of the components are irrelevant.
>
> So, Paul is the one that is delusional.  <shrug>

I note with interest that Koobee Wublee calls it a delusion
that the stellar aberration is the same for both components
of a binary system.

As I said:
"Koobee Wublee's delutions trumps experimental evidence." :-D


>> But delusions can't be reasoned away.

Thanks for the vivid demonstration of the truth of that statement. :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web