Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390009 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-14 22:05 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-08-18 06:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-14 22:05 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 00:05 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-16 09:12 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 10:10 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-17 08:45 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-17 13:59 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-17 17:19 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-18 08:24 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-18 06:20 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-18 15:06 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-19 06:58 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:12 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-19 18:19 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-20 08:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-20 12:57 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 09:10 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 06:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-21 21:28 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 06:44 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 20:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 06:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 14:08 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:35 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 06:13 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 23:44 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:49 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-23 19:07 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 06:57 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 04:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-24 05:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-26 06:06 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 15:28 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:34 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-24 20:23 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-26 06:40 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 14:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-25 23:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-27 08:38 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 16:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 05:11 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-29 15:46 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-30 05:14 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 17:47 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 20:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 21:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-09-01 06:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-02 08:49 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 16:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 20:44 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 03:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 07:55 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 15:11 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 08:43 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-03 09:22 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-01 20:21 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 13:30 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-03 19:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 06:42 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-04 18:51 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 03:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:25 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-05 08:48 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-06 09:25 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 08:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-05 09:29 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 04:54 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-30 22:13 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-31 06:54 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-31 09:31 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-03 11:11 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-23 04:36 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 18:55 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-25 04:43 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:10 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 07:43 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 07:00 +1000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 10:40 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-16 11:20 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 17:54 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-18 06:22 -0700
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 05:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npvd04$jkq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391017 |
On 27/08/16 09:15, JanPB wrote: >> ...and Minkowski's spacetime geometry is modeled on SR. >> That makes them both crap. > > An opinion. Not science. > >>> I agree people may have valid objections to this model but these objections >>> are all _philosophical_ (nothing wrong with that, just keep the apples >>> and the oranges separate). >>> >>> For example, the standard philosophical objection is that we don't know >>> why light behaves the way it does. Physics does not answer this question but >>> note that physics does not answer any _other_ question about the world. >> >> Oh crap. Physics answers plenty of questions. Why don't you learn what >> physics is all about instead of raving like an ape? > > Point is physics is not required to answer the fundamental "why" question. > This is a philosophical problem, not scientific. > More crap! Philosophy has never advanced beyond IDENTIFYING questions. Science, generally, has answered most of the traditional ones and has raised far more of its own. > Jan >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 15:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nq1ec9$ehp$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #390911 |
On 25.08.2016 22:40, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 25/08/16 04:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> I ask you again: >> Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > > SR is a silly theory that describes an imaginary universe in which light > always travels at the same speed. This is on par with saying the Earth > is always at the centre of the universe, a belief that many people still > hold. Your opinion of SR is irrelevant and of no interest. The question is what you claim SR says. > However, SR also says that light moves at c relative to inertial frames. > So, if a laser emits a horizontal beam eastward at the equator, that > beam leaves the laser at c-0.46 kms/sec, as viewed in the ECI frame. Nonsense. SR says: The beam leaves the laser at c as observed (measured) in the ECI frame. The laser moves at 0.46 kms/sec as observed (measured) in the ECI frame. The speed c-0.46 kms/sec is not viewed (measured) in the ECI frame. > My question...which you don't seem to understand at all ...asks why the > beam's departing speed will be determined by the inertial frame of the > Earth, and not, for instance by the inertial frame of an aligned distant > star? In a Sagnac ring, how does the light know it will be deflected around a > circle when it leaves its source? If it didn't, it would depart from its > source at c rather than the claimed c+v. > > Do you understand now Paul? I understand that you are so confused that you are asking meaningless questions as the above, and are uttering meaningless statements like the below: > I am asking you to justify the SR claim that > observed speed can differ from what you call 'closing speed'. There is but one observed (measured) speed of light in vacuum: c ! Nothing, including light, is moving with what YOU call 'closing speed', so how could it be observed (measured)? But all this were diversions. ----------------------------------------------------------- The question you still haven't answered was: Do you keep claiming that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? >> I predict that you will keep fleeing this simple question. You did. I was right. I predict that you will keep fleeing. https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf (I don't call anything 'closing speed') -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 05:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nq21hq$oog$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391174 |
On 29/08/16 23:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 25.08.2016 22:40, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> I am asking you to justify the SR claim that observed speed can >> differ from what you call 'closing sp.eed'. > > There is but one observed (measured) speed of light in vacuum: c ! TWLS is indeed always equal to c, as expected according to BaTh. > Nothing, including light, is moving with what YOU call 'closing > speed', so how could it be observed (measured)? > > But all this were diversions. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > The question you still haven't answered was: Do you keep claiming > that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? No Paul. SR keeps claiming light speed IS invariant. That's why it is completely wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 17:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f19b950-b590-4d81-b53c-1683ebd9d5d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391182 |
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 1:14:06 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > TWLS is indeed always equal to c, as expected according to BaTh. Dead wrong, mathematically incompetent one. Ballistic theory predicts that TWLS is c + v. > > The question you still haven't answered was: Do you keep claiming > > that SR says the speed of light is not invariant? > > No Paul. SR keeps claiming light speed IS invariant. That's why it is > completely wrong. BaTH keeps claiming that TWLS is invariant. That's why IT'S wrong. It doesn't even agree with ballistic theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 20:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Y-Wdnd8k971bFFrKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #391195 |
On 8/29/16 8/29/16 7:47 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 1:14:06 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> TWLS is indeed always equal to c, as expected according to BaTh.
>
> Dead wrong, mathematically incompetent one. Ballistic theory predicts
> that TWLS is c + v.
[TWLS = "two way light speed", i.e. the (vacuum) speed of
light measured over a round-trip (out-and-back) path.]
Not really. The usual ballistic theory, which MOST DEFINITELY is not "BaTh",
includes:
a) light is emitted from a source with speed c in the rest frame
of the source
b) light reflected by a mirror reverses its direction and has the
same speed as the incident light in the rest frame of the mirror
c) light propagating in vacuum has constant speed relative to any
frame
These imply that TWLS will be measured to be c, regardless of which frame is
used for the measurement, which is always made in the rest frame of source and
mirror.
But that is MOST DEFINITELY not "BaTh", as in "BaTh", light does not always move
ballistically, and there is some "magic" property that makes it join up with
other light rays and somehow "merge" speeds. Wilson has never discussed or
explained how, why, or when this happens, only that it somehow manages to happen
with precisely the right value whenever Wilson needs it to avoid some
embarrassing failure of "BaTh".
As I say, "BaTh" is not a physical theory, as it changes according
to Wilson's whim, and has a special plead for every experiment.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 21:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <575c1e44-d3ab-40fb-9c4c-4f4eace85372@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391330 |
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:52:13 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > ....The usual ballistic theory, which MOST DEFINITELY is not "BaTh", > includes: > a) light is emitted from a source with speed c in the rest frame > of the source > b) light reflected by a mirror reverses its direction and has the > same speed as the incident light in the rest frame of the mirror > c) light propagating in vacuum has constant speed relative to any > frame > These imply that TWLS will be measured to be c, regardless of which frame is > used for the measurement, which is always made in the rest frame of source and > mirror. As you point out, BaTh is not a theory, but a set of ill-defined special pleadings to cover every case where a prediction of BaTh fails to correlate with reality. In regards to *actual* emission theories that *do* make firm predictions as opposed to the mishmash that is BaTh, it is often forgotten in discussion on these newsgroups that a variety of emission theories of diverse characteristics have been proposed. What you described above would, I believe, correspond to the Thompson/Stewart variant of emission theory. Reflected beams essentially "bounce" off of a mirror maintaining their incident speed as measured in the rest frame of the mirror. Tolman described a variation of emission theory whereby a reflected beam is re-emitted at c relative to the rest frame of a mirror, regardless of the speed of the incident light. Ritz' version of emission theory is, in my viewpoint, especially bizarre: the velocity of a reflected beam is always equal to that of a parallel beam emitted by the original source of light. Once emitted, in other words, a light beam somehow or other always retains a "memory" of the state of motion of the original light source, regardless of how many reflections the light beam undergoes. The remarkable aspect of the Ritz variant of emission theory is that there was no purely terrestrial interferometric experiment that would distinguish between the predictions of Ritz and the predictions of special relativity. This included Sagnac's experiment as well as experiments of Quirino Majorana and of Michelson that served to disprove other forms of emission theory. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Second_Postulate_of_the_Theory_of_Relativity https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Experimental_Demonstration_of_the_Constancy_of_Velocity_of_the_Light_emitted_by_a_Moving_Source https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light It wasn't until 1924 that Dayton Miller and Rudolf Tomaschek independently conducted MMX-type experiments using extraterrestrial light sources (sunlight, moonlight, starlight, Jupiter light) that served to rule out Ritz theory and other emission theories (Tomaschek's experiments were specifically directed towards testing Lenard's variant of emission theory, which postulated a gradual re-adjustment of the speed of light from its initial speed to c with respect to the universal aether, thus "explaining away" de Sitter's arguments).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 06:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba464c1d-89a1-470f-bd9a-17fe29683dae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391341 |
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 9:49:43 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > The remarkable aspect of the Ritz variant of emission theory is that there was > no purely terrestrial interferometric experiment that would distinguish between > the predictions of Ritz and the predictions of special relativity. This included > Sagnac's experiment This is false, sagnac falsifies Ritz' theory. (So does Ives-Stilwell). Both are terrestrial interferometric experiments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 08:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqab9n$1h83$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391341 |
On 01/09/16 14:49, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:52:13 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> These imply that TWLS will be measured to be c, regardless of >> which frame is used for the measurement, which is always made in >> the rest frame of source and mirror. > > As you point out, BaTh is not a theory, but a set of ill-defined > special pleadings to cover every case where a prediction of BaTh > fails to correlate with reality. There are no such cases. > In regards to *actual* emission theories that *do* make firm > predictions as opposed to the mishmash that is BaTh, it is often > forgotten in discussion on these newsgroups that a variety of > emission theories of diverse characteristics have been proposed. > > What you described above would, I believe, correspond to the > Thompson/Stewart variant of emission theory. Reflected beams > essentially "bounce" off of a mirror maintaining their incident > speed as measured in the rest frame of the mirror. > > Tolman described a variation of emission theory whereby a reflected > beam is re-emitted at c relative to the rest frame of a mirror, > regardless of the speed of the incident light. The answer will not be known until somebody actually measures the OW speed with two clocks. Actually, it is much easier to COMPARE the two speeds, fore and back. > Ritz' version of emission theory is, in my viewpoint, especially > bizarre: the velocity of a reflected beam is always equal to that of > a parallel beam emitted by the original source of light. Once > emitted, in other words, a light beam somehow or other always > retains a "memory" of the state of motion of the original light > source, regardless of how many reflections the light beam undergoes. Yes. Ritz was wrong on that one......but there is no evidence to say what actually happens at reflection....although classical optics explains it pretty well. > The remarkable aspect of the Ritz variant of emission theory is that > there was no purely terrestrial interferometric experiment that > would distinguish between the predictions of Ritz and the predictions > of special relativity. This included Sagnac's experiment as well as > experiments of Quirino Majorana and of Michelson that served to > disprove other forms of emission theory. > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Second_Postulate_of_the_Theory_of_Relativity > > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Experimental_Demonstration_of_the_Constancy_of_Velocity_of_the_Light_emitted_by_a_Moving_Source > > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light This type of experiment is doomed to failure. According to BaTh, wavelength is absolute. Since the path lengths are the same no matter what the mirror speed is, there will be no fringe movement. Opponents of BaTh make the same mistake when they claim that Sagnac refutes the theory. Basically, light speed cannot be measured with interference techniques. > It wasn't until 1924 that Dayton Miller and Rudolf Tomaschek > independently conducted MMX-type experiments using extraterrestrial > light sources (sunlight, moonlight, starlight, Jupiter light) that > served to rule out Ritz theory and other emission theories > (Tomaschek's experiments were specifically directed towards testing > Lenard's variant of emission theory, which postulated a gradual > re-adjustment of the speed of light from its initial speed to c with > respect to the universal aether, thus "explaining away" de Sitter's > arguments). BaTh includes the likelihood that all light moving in a particular direction tends toward a common speed. There is good reason to think that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 16:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5fd81cc9-e1be-4eae-8cda-0e10d29eda50@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391380 |
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 5:49:32 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 01/09/16 14:49, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > As you point out, BaTh is not a theory, but a set of ill-defined > > special pleadings to cover every case where a prediction of BaTh > > fails to correlate with reality. > > There are no such cases. On the contrary. BaTh is wrong in practically ***EVERY*** prediction, even WITH your special pleading. You have not successfully predicted a single stellar luminosity curve at multiple wavelengths, for instance, nor successfully correlated a single, solitary luminosity curve with actual Doppler ***measurements*** as opposed to pointing out superficial similarities in shape (totally ignoring scale) between radial velocity curves and your BaTh predictions. You fantasize a lot about your imaginary successes, but the fact remains that you have none.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 20:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MfqdneiK-dkSRFXKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #391341 |
On 8/31/16 8/31/16 11:49 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > In regards to *actual* emission theories that *do* make firm predictions as > opposed to the mishmash that is BaTh, it is often forgotten in discussion on > these newsgroups that a variety of emission theories of diverse characteristics > have been proposed. I am fully aware of this, which is why I called what I described "the USUAL ballistic theory". I did not want to get bogged down in details that are irrelevant to my argument. Nor did I want to spend time researching who said what, so I just described how bullets behave, translated to light. I know of no ballistic theory of light that is not refuted by basic observations of visual binaries, spectroscopic binaries, and a large number of direct laboratory experiments. I don't really care about the minutiae of refuted theories. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 03:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cdc2704a-9e88-46a7-bf24-806ab503b4a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391388 |
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:44:53 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/31/16 8/31/16 11:49 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > In regards to *actual* emission theories that *do* make firm predictions as > > opposed to the mishmash that is BaTh, it is often forgotten in discussion on > > these newsgroups that a variety of emission theories of diverse characteristics > > have been proposed. > > I am fully aware of this, which is why I called what I described "the USUAL > ballistic theory". I did not want to get bogged down in details that are > irrelevant to my argument. Nor did I want to spend time researching who said > what, so I just described how bullets behave, translated to light. > > I know of no ballistic theory of light that is not refuted by basic observations > of visual binaries, spectroscopic binaries, and a large number of direct > laboratory experiments. I don't really care about the minutiae of refuted theories. On the other hand, my recreational interests (to judge by the last few hundred books that I have read, the last few including biographies of Faraday, Maxwell, Ramanujan, Galileo, J.C. Venter, Barbara McClintock, Darwin, Archimedes etc.) would appear to lie more in the _history_ of science, so I do find myself caring about such minutiae. Walther Ritz is a much misunderstood figure on these newsgroups. He was a theoretical physicist of the highest caliber, widely regarded by his peers as one of the best of his generation. In contrast to Einstein, who was a champion of the twin revolutions of quantum mechanics and relativity, Ritz firmly believed that it was possible to reform classical mechanics from within. Rather paradoxically, although opposed the the quantum, Ritz's name is currently associated with several computational techniques in use for the solution of quantum mechanics problems. It should be remembered that although Maxwell's equations had been around since the early 1870s, the understanding and exegesis of these equations was still evolving. Lorentz's interpretation of Maxwell's equations as manifest in his "electron theory" (with the understanding that what early 20th century physicists understood as an "electron" was rather different than the present understanding) was perhaps still the dominant interpretation, with Einstein's world view considered merely as an elegant alternative. Max Abraham's theory of the rigid spherical electron presented a serious challenge to Lorentz and Einstein, especially since early experiments appeared much more consistent with Abraham's theory than with Lorentz/Einstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments When we on these newsgroups think of Ritz's reworking of Maxwell's equations, we tend to think only of the emission theory aspect of his reformulation. To Ritz, emission theory was merely an exploratory framework for thinking about alternatives to Maxwell's electrodynamics. Among many other considerations, Ritz was seeking an alternative to the quantum hypothesis that avoided the issue of "ultraviolet catastrophe". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe Ritz pointed out that it was the possibility of advanced potentials in Maxwell's electrodynamics that allowed such ludicrous calculations. Lorentz's interpretation of Maxwell's equations also made use of absolute coordinates, which violated Galilean relativity. The notion of an aether that could act upon matter while not reacting violated Newton's third law, and the definition of energy density in the aether was vague, to say the least. Long before Einstein, Ritz was thinking of the possibility of a unified theory of gravitation and electrodynamics, and it was clear that there was no possibility of such within Maxwell's framework. All of these problems led Ritz to think that there was perhaps a basic problem with the field concept. Ritz's reformulation of electrodynamics postulated charges that interacted exclusively through retarded forces. Although disagreeing with them, Ritz was thoroughly conversant with the current interpretations of electrodynamics, relativity, and the emerging quantum mechanics. His debate with Einstein led to a joint paper in which, basically, the two agreed to disagree. Ritz, Walter, and Einstein, Albert. (1909) "Zum gegenwärtigen Stand des Strahlungsproblems." Physikalische Zeitschrift 10:323 Ritz's writings show him to be extremely respectful of experiment as providing the fundamental underpinnings for theoretical development. I like to think that had Ritz lived to see the triumphs of special/general relativity, the definitive disproof of his version of emission theory, and the achievements of the quantum hypothesis, that he would have had the grace to admit defeat while continuing to be productive, even as he had proven himself productive in the other branch of the new physics that he mistrusted, quantum mechanics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 07:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6067e21-059f-4b7f-97ef-8bd7e2467d48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391402 |
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:20:18 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > Although disagreeing with them, Ritz was thoroughly conversant with the current > interpretations of electrodynamics, relativity, and the emerging quantum > mechanics. His debate with Einstein led to a joint paper in which, basically, > the two agreed to disagree. > Ritz, Walter, and Einstein, Albert. (1909) "Zum gegenwärtigen Stand des > Strahlungsproblems." Physikalische Zeitschrift 10:323 Anybody interested in the full details of the debate can find it online. On page 185, the original article by Einstein. On page 224, Ritz's response to Einstein's article. On page 323, a joint statement summarizing their points of disagreement. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015023919049;view=1up;seq=5
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 07:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqfgrq$v03$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391464 |
On 04/09/16 00:24, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:20:18 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> Although disagreeing with them, Ritz was thoroughly conversant with the current >> interpretations of electrodynamics, relativity, and the emerging quantum >> mechanics. His debate with Einstein led to a joint paper in which, basically, >> the two agreed to disagree. >> Ritz, Walter, and Einstein, Albert. (1909) "Zum gegenwärtigen Stand des >> Strahlungsproblems." Physikalische Zeitschrift 10:323 > > Anybody interested in the full details of the debate can find it online. > On page 185, the original article by Einstein. > On page 224, Ritz's response to Einstein's article. > On page 323, a joint statement summarizing their points of disagreement. > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015023919049;view=1up;seq=5 I read it years ago...If Ritz had not died of TB, the name Einstein would never have gotten past first base.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 15:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f0e2388-6581-4ca7-be30-cedbcf0720ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391490 |
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:55:10 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 04/09/16 00:24, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:20:18 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > Anybody interested in the full details of the debate can find it online. > > On page 185, the original article by Einstein. > > On page 224, Ritz's response to Einstein's article. > > On page 323, a joint statement summarizing their points of disagreement. > > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015023919049;view=1up;seq=5 > > I read it years ago...If Ritz had not died of TB, the name Einstein > would never have gotten past first base. The fact is, that Miller and Tomaschek definitively disproved the Ritz variant of emission theory. Period. Not to mention Lenard's variant of emission theory. I doubt that you can summarize for me the issue on which Einstein and Ritz disagreed and the significance of that issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 08:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqi82l$l8n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391496 |
On 04/09/16 08:11, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:55:10 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 04/09/16 00:24, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:20:18 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>> Anybody interested in the full details of the debate can find it online. >>> On page 185, the original article by Einstein. >>> On page 224, Ritz's response to Einstein's article. >>> On page 323, a joint statement summarizing their points of disagreement. >>> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015023919049;view=1up;seq=5 >> >> I read it years ago...If Ritz had not died of TB, the name Einstein >> would never have gotten past first base. > > The fact is, that Miller and Tomaschek definitively disproved the Ritz variant > of emission theory. Period. Not to mention Lenard's variant of emission theory. I have revise the whole theory in order to squash such flawed 'refutations'. BaTh has never been refuted. All knoemember correctly.wn experiments support it. > I doubt that you can summarize for me the issue on which Einstein and Ritz > disagreed and the significance of that issue. It is on my old computer...electrodynamic issue IIRC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 09:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqd1ja$1j02$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391388 |
On 02/09/16 11:44, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/31/16 8/31/16 11:49 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> In regards to *actual* emission theories that *do* make firm >> predictions as >> opposed to the mishmash that is BaTh, it is often forgotten in >> discussion on >> these newsgroups that a variety of emission theories of diverse >> characteristics >> have been proposed. > > I am fully aware of this, which is why I called what I described "the > USUAL ballistic theory". I did not want to get bogged down in details > that are irrelevant to my argument. Nor did I want to spend time > researching who said what, so I just described how bullets behave, > translated to light. > > I know of no ballistic theory of light that is not refuted by basic > observations of visual binaries, spectroscopic binaries, and a large > number of direct laboratory experiments. I don't really care about the > minutiae of refuted theories. Your ignorance is due to the fact that you are making incorrect assumptions in the first place. For instance, what you believe are spectroscopic binaries could easily be something entirely different. I have already explained why all other claimed refutations of BaTh are flawed. It is 100% obvious now that light is basically ballistic in free space but can experience minute accelerations during long term travel. However, where 'fields' exist, so does a medium that might be likened to classical aether and which can effect light by amounts depending on the 'field density.'. > Tom Roberts >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 20:21 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nq8vf1$1511$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391330 |
On 01/09/16 11:52, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/29/16 8/29/16 7:47 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 1:14:06 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. >> wrote: >>> TWLS is indeed always equal to c, as expected according to BaTh. >> >> Dead wrong, mathematically incompetent one. Ballistic theory >> predicts that TWLS is c + v. > > [TWLS = "two way light speed", i.e. the (vacuum) speed of light > measured over a round-trip (out-and-back) path.] > > Not really. The usual ballistic theory, which MOST DEFINITELY is not > "BaTh", includes: BaTh is a revised version of standard Ballistic theory. It is immune to all past 'refutations'. > a) light is emitted from a source with speed c in the rest frame of > the source b) light reflected by a mirror reverses its direction and > has the same speed as the incident light in the rest frame of the > mirror c) light propagating in vacuum has constant speed relative to > any frame Where did you get that idea? > These imply that TWLS will be measured to be c, regardless of which > frame is used for the measurement, which is always made in the rest > frame of source and mirror. Of course. They must be MAR or the answer will not be c. BaTh is the only theory that predicts TWLS to be constant. > But that is MOST DEFINITELY not "BaTh", as in "BaTh", light does not > always move ballistically, and there is some "magic" property that > makes it join up with other light rays and somehow "merge" speeds. > Wilson has never discussed or explained how, why, or when this > happens, only that it somehow manages to happen with precisely the > right value whenever Wilson needs it to avoid some embarrassing > failure of "BaTh". Unification is one possibility. It is fairly rapid around large masses but is a slow process in empty space. Thus, all light leaving the vicinity of a star does so at close to c relative to its centre and irrespective of molecular or other source speeds or of the star's rotation. > As I say, "BaTh" is not a physical theory, as it changes according to > Wilson's whim, and has a special plead for every experiment. BaTh is under development. I cannot change the course of physics in a few years single handedly... The fact that so many light curves can be explained on the assumption that light moves at c+v through space is compelling evidence that Einstein's P2 is wrong...as it must be. > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 13:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QM-dna3SG8cz7lXKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #391351 |
On 9/1/16 9/1/16 - 5:21 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 01/09/16 11:52, Tom Roberts wrote: >> The usual ballistic theory, which MOST DEFINITELY is not "BaTh", >> includes: a) light is emitted from a source with speed c in the rest frame >> of the source b) light reflected by a mirror reverses its direction and >> has the same speed as the incident light in the rest frame of the >> mirror c) light propagating in vacuum has constant speed relative to >> any frame > > Where did you get that idea? From my general knowledge and study of physics. In particular, (a), (b), and (c) are essentially what it means for light to be "ballistic" -- if one considers a mirror to be a perfectly elastic reflector, then they apply equally well to bullets with c replaced by their muzzle velocity. In this last I mean the speed c, not the item (c). > BaTh is the only theory > that predicts TWLS to be constant. You repeatedly demonstrate your general ignorance and inability to read. "BaTh" is not at all "the only" such theory. You OUGHT to know that SR predicts this; more to the point: the usual ballistic theory I just described does so. AS I SAID, and to which you responded "of course". > Unification is one possibility. It is fairly rapid around large masses > but is a slow process in empty space. Thus, all light leaving the vicinity of a > star does so at close to c relative to its centre and irrespective of molecular > or other source speeds or of the star's rotation. So how is it that light leaves at c from visual binaries [A] and spectroscopic binaries [B], but leaves at c+v from the supposed constituents moving inside cepheids [C]? [A] The constituents of the system are fully resolved. [B] The constituents are partially resolved. [C] No constituents of the system are resolved. From your claims here, it should be EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE: light should leave at c relative to each constituent of a visible binary, and leave at c relative to a cepheid (rapid unification near a large mass). That is, light from a visible binary should come to us at c+v, with v the orbital speed of each constituent projected onto our line-of-sight. Ditto for spectroscopic binaries (though it is not quite so clear-cut). THIS IS OBSERVABLY WRONG. And, of course, fantasizing that cepheids have unresolved constituents whose motion produces their variable intensity is inconsistent with the lack of spectroscopic evidence for that motion -- cepheids are NOT spectroscopic binaries. > The fact that so many light curves can be explained on the assumption > that light moves at c+v through space is compelling evidence > that Einstein's P2 is wrong Not at all. If c+v applied to visible binaries then you would have a point, BUT IT DOESN'T. And that OBSERVABLE FACT demolishes your claims. And, of course, in "BaTh" light does NOT move at c+v.... (At least today...). > as it must be. Once more you reveal that your approach is not science. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW." <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 19:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nqe568$sic$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #391367 |
On 02/09/16 04:30, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/1/16 9/1/16 - 5:21 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 01/09/16 11:52, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> The usual ballistic theory, which MOST DEFINITELY is not "BaTh", >>> includes: a) light is emitted from a source with speed c in the rest >>> frame >>> of the source b) light reflected by a mirror reverses its direction and >>> has the same speed as the incident light in the rest frame of the >>> mirror c) light propagating in vacuum has constant speed relative to >>> any frame >> >> Where did you get that idea? > > From my general knowledge and study of physics. In particular, (a), > (b), and (c) are essentially what it means for light to be "ballistic" > -- if one considers a mirror to be a perfectly elastic reflector, then > they apply equally well to bullets with c replaced by their muzzle > velocity. a) is correct, b) is uncertain from lack of theory or evidence and c) is your own theory's (incorrect) claim. > In this last I mean the speed c, not the item (c). > > >> BaTh is the only theory >> that predicts TWLS to be constant. > > You repeatedly demonstrate your general ignorance and inability to read. > "BaTh" is not at all "the only" such theory. You OUGHT to know that SR > predicts this; more to the point: the usual ballistic theory I just > described does so. AS I SAID, and to which you responded "of course". SR says light speed is c relative to the source but predicts TWLS would be the same irrespective of 'mirror' movement, relative to the source. BaTh does not say that. > >> Unification is one possibility. It is fairly rapid around large masses >> but is a slow process in empty space. Thus, all light leaving the >> vicinity of a >> star does so at close to c relative to its centre and irrespective of >> molecular >> or other source speeds or of the star's rotation. > > So how is it that light leaves at c from visual binaries [A] and > spectroscopic binaries [B], but leaves at c+v from the supposed > constituents moving inside cepheids [C]? Visual binaries have very long periods...so you can't say much about them. Spetroscopic binaries are probably not binaries at all. Every aspect of astronomy is under question. > [A] The constituents of the system are fully resolved. > [B] The constituents are partially resolved. > [C] No constituents of the system are resolved.> > From your claims here, it should be EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE: light should > leave at c relative to each constituent of a visible binary, and leave > at c relative to a cepheid (rapid unification near a large mass). That > is, light from a visible binary should come to us at c+v, with v the > orbital speed of each constituent projected onto our line-of-sight. That is what happens. So what we see is a Willusion. You seem to be under the impression that what we see is real. > Ditto for spectroscopic binaries (though it is not quite so clear-cut). > THIS IS OBSERVABLY WRONG. What you are observing cannot be wrong. How it is interpreted is wrong. And, of course, fantasizing that cepheids have > unresolved constituents whose motion produces their variable intensity > is inconsistent with the lack of spectroscopic evidence for that motion > -- cepheids are NOT spectroscopic binaries. On the contrary. A feature of Cepheids is that their brightness curves is about a mirror image of their apparent velocity curves. It was that fact, put forward by your old colleague 'Jerry' aka 'Minor Crank' that encouraged me to look for an explanation. That is basically why I discovered ADoppler...which Paul Andersen now understands. >> The fact that so many light curves can be explained on the assumption >> that light moves at c+v through space is compelling evidence >> that Einstein's P2 is wrong > > Not at all. If c+v applied to visible binaries then you would have a > point, BUT IT DOESN'T. And that OBSERVABLE FACT demolishes your claims. It has never been tested on visual binaries because we only see p[arts of an orbit and what we see is not what actually happens. > And, of course, in "BaTh" light does NOT move at c+v.... (At least > today...). According to BaTh, light moves at c relative to it source. How could it do anything else? It has no other reference. I think it does so because its souc is invariably a 'field'...and fields are the equivalent of classical aether ...so according to Maxwell, the generate quantum escapes from the field at c. >> as it must be. > > Once more you reveal that your approach is not science. On the contrary. Judging from the publications, it is apparent that many other scientists are in full agreement with my theories. > Tom Roberts > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 06:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3ae148b-c9b6-45d2-84f8-334a5852f2d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391455 |
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:29:49 AM UTC-5, HGW. wrote: > On the contrary. Judging from the publications, it is apparent that many > other scientists are in full agreement with my theories. What other scientists? Even Androcles, your best friend on these newsgroups, thought that your take on emission theory was a bunch of hooey.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web