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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #356907 > unrolled thread

Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled.

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.

Contents

  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-12 14:52 -0700
    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2015-07-13 08:14 +0200
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-13 02:30 -0400
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-14 16:59 +0200
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 10:31 -0500
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-15 06:55 +1000
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-14 20:58 -0400
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. xxein1@att.net - 2015-07-14 18:36 -0700
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 23:14 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 00:01 -0700
    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-14 19:46 +0000
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 09:23 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-16 16:39 +0000
    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 13:19 -0700
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 13:49 -0700
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 17:19 +0200
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 09:13 -0700
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-16 16:20 +0000
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 09:26 -0700
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 18:38 +0200
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 13:30 -0700
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 22:36 +0200
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 13:40 -0700
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 23:01 +0200
                        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 14:09 -0700
                          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 23:20 +0200
                            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 08:12 +0200
                              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 23:46 -0700
                                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 09:15 +0200
                                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 14:50 -0700
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-16 16:38 +0000
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-16 15:56 -0400
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 13:20 -0700
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-16 16:23 -0400
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-16 20:33 +0000
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 13:49 -0700
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-16 21:01 +0000
                        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 14:09 -0700
                          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-16 21:21 +0000
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 23:06 +0200
                        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 14:13 -0700
                          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 23:23 +0200
                            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 08:15 +0200
                              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 23:33 -0700
                            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 23:53 -0700
                              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 23:57 -0700
                                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 00:42 -0700
                              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:22 -0500
    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-15 06:47 +1000
    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. HW <hw@...> - 2015-07-15 07:16 +1000
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-16 20:26 +1000
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 09:20 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. qw <qw@qw.au> - 2015-07-16 16:34 +0000
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 18:36 +0200
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-16 15:59 -0400
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 22:06 +0200
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 13:20 -0700
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 21:22 -0700
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 21:28 -0700
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 21:40 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-16 15:55 -0400
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 13:35 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 13:33 -0700
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-16 22:56 +0200
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 14:03 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-18 09:23 +1000
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-19 08:04 +1000
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. xxein1@att.net - 2015-07-18 20:17 -0700
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-07-19 20:56 +0200
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-19 22:46 +0000
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-22 05:43 +0000
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-23 08:43 +1000
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-23 08:08 -0500
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 17:46 -0500
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 15:54 -0700
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-23 16:50 -0700
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-23 17:20 -0700
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 20:49 -0500
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 12:02 -0500
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-25 12:00 -0700
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 09:35 -0500
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 12:46 -0500
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-25 11:58 -0700
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 09:34 -0500
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-26 02:10 +0000
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-07-24 14:15 +0200
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 09:44 -0500
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-28 08:19 +1000
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 17:45 -0500
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-29 06:52 +1000
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 16:37 -0500
                        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-29 07:56 +1000
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 16:10 -0700
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-07-28 10:40 +0200
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-29 06:40 +1000
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 16:35 -0500
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-29 02:35 +0000
    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-25 10:47 -0700
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 13:19 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-25 23:48 +0200
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-26 12:17 -0700
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-30 13:16 -0700
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 22:16 -0700
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-02 11:24 -0700
      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 23:54 -0700
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-26 20:42 -0700
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-28 08:23 +1000
        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-28 08:29 +1000
          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 16:26 -0700
            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-29 07:40 +1000
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 16:42 -0500
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-30 07:05 +1000
                  Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-01 19:50 +1000
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-03 04:54 +1000
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-10 18:33 +0000
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-03 05:22 +1000
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 14:23 -0700
                        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-03 20:03 +1000
                          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-03 05:38 -0700
                        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-08-04 07:56 +1000
                          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-03 18:22 -0700
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 17:07 -0500
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 09:02 -0500
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:30 -0700
                    Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-04 21:52 +0200
                      Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 14:57 -0500
                        Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-05 06:13 +1000
                          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 15:42 -0500
                          Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-05 15:23 +0200
                            Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-08-06 06:56 +1000
                              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-08-05 15:08 -0700
                              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-06 12:03 +0200
              Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 15:06 -0700
                Re: The GPS GR Argument Finally Settled. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-07-30 06:57 +1000

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

#358741

W dniu niedziela, 26 lipca 2015 19:35:40 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> You haven't addressed my question. Let's dissect your answer:

Indeed, you keep be right.
I don't know exactly nothoning about
yours fantastic, idiotic imagininations about the primitive
system of comunication, called populary GPS. :)

> > You again mix the math with the (meta)physics -
> 
> Details, please. I pointed out to another abstraction with geometric properties
> that's used in physics. You never answered why, according to you,
> spacetime is "idiotic improvisation of imbeciles" while phase space is not.

Any algebraic concept is equaly absrtract...
excluding only these: Mincowskian, Riemannian,
Einsteinian, Hilbertian, Wayls, Faynmenian... - good enought? 

> If you don't know what space phase is, just say so.
> It won't affect your original argument
> provided you tell us what it is (writing "idiotic improvisation of imbeciles"
> doesn't count).

Any space is just an abstract concept,
which describes of a potence only... set of configurations... ect.

The naive mathematicians mix this with something real, physical,
and especially the relativists, hence these idiotic ideas like:
- a curvature of space - in place of a gravity force,
- a time dilation instead of a simple slow-down effect,
- a space contraction in place of real contraction
ect.

So, it looks the idiots always see the inverse -
a reverse, of the actual situation!
Something like a reasoning of type:
a light is a lack of shadow. :))))

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

#359113

W dniu poniedziałek, 27 lipca 2015 20:28:19 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
 
> Still no answer, just ad hominem attacks. What an immature goofball
> you are. Here is the question I asked and all I got from you was squirming,
> screaming, writhing, and kindergarten epithets:

You are just stupid really, perhaps somewhat naturally...
I don't use any rhetorics. :)

This looks funny, but it's very sad, because
it implies some type of a geocentric man...
which still live among us today, and... still improvise,
generating these idiotic models, called popularly as the mainstream science.
 
> Why, according to you, spacetime is [I'm quoting] "idiotic improvisation
> of imbeciles" while phase space is not?

I easily can/must tolerate any amateur, but not the cretins,
which don't even recognise a simple text.

There has been plainly written: 'any space is...'; understandable for you,
or you comprehend still more primitive level only?
I'm afraid the psychopathic regimes are over my ability, competence... :)

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

#359383

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 10:37:28 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 31 lipca 2015 07:51:32 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> 
> > Why, according to you, spacetime is [I'm quoting] "idiotic improvisation 
> > of imbeciles" while phase space is not? 
> 
> The spacetime concept is a simple negation of the standard reality.

In other words, "I have no clue".

> This is a primitive ideology, philosophy, about space and time...

In other words, "I don't like the sound of it, therefore it's wrong".

> but still with a big bug.
> namely:
> in a formal math any transformation has
> exactly null impact on the final result -
> it's just an abstract operation, nothing physical...

In other words, "I don't understand math, so let's just pretend physics cannot
be done with math".

> but in the relativity the so-called Lorentz transform is just a strictly physical being,
> not only formal, descriptive, auxiliary, etc... so, it's a very special transform - just the prefered one!

This is word salad.

> And just that is the idiocy - there is no privileged transform in the math!
> 
> Any math transform is the same in a physical sense - it's just nothing physical!
> So, the relativists are the improvising idiots,
> because they prefer, treat especially the one transformation only;
> thus the spacetime itself must be a physical entity in this pseudotheory...

More schizophrenic gobbledygook.

> OK. This is just a typical pseudoscience... easily to disprove.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, was the answer I _finally_ got (like pulling teeth)
to the question I asked on top of the post.

--
Jan

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

#359465

W dniu niedziela, 2 sierpnia 2015 07:16:41 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> > The spacetime concept is a simple negation of the standard reality.
> 
> In other words, "I have no clue".

I know exactly what is a stupidity...
just due to the very long study of the non-classical 'theories'. :)

> > This is a primitive ideology, philosophy, about space and time...
> 
> In other words, "I don't like the sound of it, therefore it's wrong".

I know also and very precisely what is a common sense belief,
the surogate strategy modeling, ect.
on which your idiotic pseudomath is based. :)
 
> In other words, "I don't understand math,
> so let's just pretend physics cannot be done with math".

Exactly opposite: you lost the sense of the math in these neo-theories.
A relativist is just a typical denialist -
due to a low experience in a strict math,
but additionally he aspires to be a math expert.

This unfortunate composition generates the very primitive mental state,
which was verry common in the middle ages era among the so-called inquisitors... that is just that state, exactly.

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

#358673

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 4:34:45 PM UTC-7, HG Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:47:13 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> 
> >W dniu poniedzia?ek, 13 lipca 2015 22:32:48 UTC+2 u?ytkownik JanPB napisa?:
> > 
> >> There is actually nothing outrageously wrong with the Ptolemy system,
> >> it's simply what we'd call now a Fourier-type series expansion of the
> >> heliocentric model. So yes, it's clumsy, but it's not wrong in the same
> 
> >
> >Of course - You are right!
> >
> >Afterall it's evident the whole SR (meta)phisical claims,
> >like the c = inv, a time dilation, and the whole space-time concept,
> >are just an idiotic improvisation... of imbeciles;
> >
> >Perfectly analogously to the inquisitors in the geocentric era,
> >which have claim the great idiotic ideas also...
> >well, maybe a little less idiotic.
> >
> >And it's completely irrespective of any experimental data, evidence!
> 
> They make experiments. They define two clocks to be in synch only when they
> measure the speed of light to be c and then they claim light speed is always c
> when they use those clocks to measure it.

No, that's not how it works. You make the classic mistake of misunderstanding
the 2nd postulate (hint: if you were correct, the postulate would also apply
to sound signals and we'd have in the real world the phenomena of "acoustic
time dilation", "acoustic length contraction", "acoustic mass increase",
etc.

> Not only that. Nowadays they define standard lengths in terms of a constant
> light speed and then use those lengths to measure light speed.
> 
> Dingleberries are very clever. you know.

You really have no clue how this works.

--
Jan

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

#358783

On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 5:30:38 PM UTC-5, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 11:35:32 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >You get off topic too easily. The subject was Henry's misunderstanding of the full 
> >import of the 2nd postulate in Einstein's 1905 paper. (Whether such things satisfy 
> >your idea of what science is or should be does not interest me and is irrelevant 
> >here.)
> >
> >Specifically, Henry assumes the speed of light constancy is due merely to setting
> >up clocks certain way. 
> 
> What ''speed of light constancy'' is that? 
> 
> >This is incorrect, and I pointed out the obvious
> >counterexample: sound signals ALSO satisfy such mangled "Henry's version
> >of Einstein's 2nd postulate" YET there are no corresponding acoustic phenomena,
> >no need for "acoustic GPS correction", no need to correct particle accelerators
> >for "acoustic mass increase", etc. etc.
> 
> Why don't you read Einstein's 1905 paper and learn what his theory is all
> about. You clearly don't understand it at all.
> 
> >Hence, Henry is wrong on that point.
> 
> Bullshit! Einstein defines two clocks as being in synch IF and only IF they
> measure OWLS to be c. How can any two such clocks measure OWLS to have a value
> other than c?
> >
> >QED.
> 
> __
> 
> Henry Wilson DSc.

OWLS can be considered instantaneous.

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

#358839

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:42:46 -0700 (PDT), John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> >This is incorrect, and I pointed out the obvious
>> >counterexample: sound signals ALSO satisfy such mangled "Henry's version
>> >of Einstein's 2nd postulate" YET there are no corresponding acoustic phenomena,
>> >no need for "acoustic GPS correction", no need to correct particle accelerators
>> >for "acoustic mass increase", etc. etc.
>> 
>> Why don't you read Einstein's 1905 paper and learn what his theory is all
>> about. You clearly don't understand it at all.
>> 
>> >Hence, Henry is wrong on that point.
>> 
>> Bullshit! Einstein defines two clocks as being in synch IF and only IF they
>> measure OWLS to be c. How can any two such clocks measure OWLS to have a value
>> other than c?
>> >
>> >QED.
>> 
>> __
>> 
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>OWLS can be considered instantaneous.

It cannot. Light takes time to go from A to B like anything else.

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#358840

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:13:54 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:30:38 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 11:35:32 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> >You get off topic too easily. The subject was Henry's misunderstanding of the full 
>> >import of the 2nd postulate in Einstein's 1905 paper. (Whether such things satisfy 
>> >your idea of what science is or should be does not interest me and is irrelevant 
>> >here.)
>> >
>> >Specifically, Henry assumes the speed of light constancy is due merely to setting
>> >up clocks certain way. 
>> 
>> What ''speed of light constancy'' is that? 
>
>You are apparently unaware that Einstein's 2nd postulate is NOT just a convention,
>it has an actual _physically testable_ content. There has been no experiment to the
>contrary (yet).

There has been no experiment in support either.

>For example, sound signals fail the 2nd postulate yet their speed is independent
>of the speed of the source. Do you know why the difference?

So you have become an aetheirst now, eh? ...talking about waves in a medium.
Most Einstein worshippers ARE,  deep down. It is the only way their silly
second postuulate can physically operate.

>This is not the only example of an assumption in the 1905 paper which must be 
>_physically tested_. Another one is, for example, his claim that his definition
>of simultaneity 
>
>Another example of an assumption in Einstein's 1905 paper that must be _physically 
>tested_ is when he defines simultaneity and says "we assume that this definition
>of synchronism is free of contradictions". I bet 99% of the amateur readers fly
>right past that point never bothering to check this. If you do check it, you'll
>see that it relies on the following fact (checked experimentally by Fizeau
>around 1850 (IIRC) of which Einstein was obviously aware:

Simultaneity is absolute and has nothing whatsoever to do with light or what
we humans observe.

>   The time it takes for light to travel around a closed triangular path is
>the same whether the light goes in one direction around the triangle, or the other.

That's just a TWLS experiment. He is agreeing with BaTh.

>(Note no clock sync is needed here as only one clock is being used.)
>
>Without this result one cannot define simultaneity the Einstein way "free
>from contradictions".
>
>> >This is incorrect, and I pointed out the obvious
>> >counterexample: sound signals ALSO satisfy such mangled "Henry's version
>> >of Einstein's 2nd postulate" YET there are no corresponding acoustic phenomena,
>> >no need for "acoustic GPS correction", no need to correct particle accelerators
>> >for "acoustic mass increase", etc. etc.
>> 
>> Why don't you read Einstein's 1905 paper and learn what his theory is all
>> about. You clearly don't understand it at all.
>
>Rhetoric. Come back when you have something to say.

Why do you bother saying anything when it is invariably devoid of intelligent
content?


__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#358846

On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 3:29:01 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:13:54 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 3:30:38 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 11:35:32 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >You get off topic too easily. The subject was Henry's misunderstanding of the full 
> >> >import of the 2nd postulate in Einstein's 1905 paper. (Whether such things satisfy 
> >> >your idea of what science is or should be does not interest me and is irrelevant 
> >> >here.)
> >> >
> >> >Specifically, Henry assumes the speed of light constancy is due merely to setting
> >> >up clocks certain way. 
> >> 
> >> What ''speed of light constancy'' is that? 
> >
> >You are apparently unaware that Einstein's 2nd postulate is NOT just a convention,
> >it has an actual _physically testable_ content. There has been no experiment to the
> >contrary (yet).
> 
> There has been no experiment in support either.

All experiments so far showed synced clocks remain in sync.

> >For example, sound signals fail the 2nd postulate yet their speed is independent
> >of the speed of the source. Do you know why the difference?
> 
> So you have become an aetheirst now, eh?

You didn't answer the question.

> ...talking about waves in a medium.

I used sound signals to point out to you the _difference_ between
them and light signals.

> Most Einstein worshippers ARE,  deep down. It is the only way their silly
> second postuulate can physically operate.

No, the standard thinking about it is that it's not aether (that idea is
dead and buried) but some structure of space which hasn't been modelled yet.
Then we'll understand better what exactly happens when light propagates.
But for now relativity is the best model we have.

> >This is not the only example of an assumption in the 1905 paper which must be 
> >_physically tested_. Another one is, for example, his claim that his definition
> >of simultaneity 
> >
> >Another example of an assumption in Einstein's 1905 paper that must be _physically 
> >tested_ is when he defines simultaneity and says "we assume that this definition
> >of synchronism is free of contradictions". I bet 99% of the amateur readers fly
> >right past that point never bothering to check this. If you do check it, you'll
> >see that it relies on the following fact (checked experimentally by Fizeau
> >around 1850 (IIRC) of which Einstein was obviously aware:
> 
> Simultaneity is absolute and has nothing whatsoever to do with light or what
> we humans observe.

Simultaneity is a defined notion in relativity, it's not absolute. In the
1905 paper Einstein didn't bother to spell out the proof of the consistency
of his definition as he was addressing professionals who could check
this at the back of the envelope in 5 minutes. When you do that (have you
done that?), you'll see you need Fizeau's result to prove transitivity (of 
course you know that to prove the consistency you need to show reflexivity, 
symmetry, and transitivity, don't you? Reflexivity and symmetry are trivial, 
transitivity requires Fizeau.)

> >   The time it takes for light to travel around a closed triangular path is
> >the same whether the light goes in one direction around the triangle, or the other.
> 
> That's just a TWLS experiment. He is agreeing with BaTh.

Glad to hear that :-)

> >> >This is incorrect, and I pointed out the obvious
> >> >counterexample: sound signals ALSO satisfy such mangled "Henry's version
> >> >of Einstein's 2nd postulate" YET there are no corresponding acoustic phenomena,
> >> >no need for "acoustic GPS correction", no need to correct particle accelerators
> >> >for "acoustic mass increase", etc. etc.
> >> 
> >> Why don't you read Einstein's 1905 paper and learn what his theory is all
> >> about. You clearly don't understand it at all.
> >
> >Rhetoric. Come back when you have something to say.
> 
> Why do you bother saying anything when it is invariably devoid of intelligent
> content?

Devoid of intelligent content to you. Remember you started it by saying:

"They define two clocks to be in synch only when they
measure the speed of light to be c and then they claim light speed is always c
when they use those clocks to measure it."

I only pointed out this was incorrect for one obvious reason: if it was
correct, it would also apply to sound signals (because their speed is also
independent of the source speed) and YET there are no "acoustic" versions
in nature of the phenomena like time dilation, Lorentz contraction, etc.
Do you know why?

OK, I'll answer it: because you don't quite grasp the 2nd postulate.

--
Jan

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

#358932

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:26:00 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 3:29:01 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>> >> What ''speed of light constancy'' is that? 
>> >
>> >You are apparently unaware that Einstein's 2nd postulate is NOT just a convention,
>> >it has an actual _physically testable_ content. There has been no experiment to the
>> >contrary (yet).
>> 
>> There has been no experiment in support either.
>
>All experiments so far showed synced clocks remain in sync.

So they should...and in all frames.

>> >For example, sound signals fail the 2nd postulate yet their speed is independent
>> >of the speed of the source. Do you know why the difference?
>> 
>> So you have become an aetheirst now, eh?
>
>You didn't answer the question.

Light is not at all like sound.
Only an aetherist would refer to it.

>> ...talking about waves in a medium.
>
>I used sound signals to point out to you the _difference_ between
>them and light signals.

>> Most Einstein worshippers ARE,  deep down. It is the only way their silly
>> second postuulate can physically operate.
>
>No, the standard thinking about it is that it's not aether (that idea is
>dead and buried) but some structure of space which hasn't been modelled yet.
>Then we'll understand better what exactly happens when light propagates.

I have already told you. Each 'photon' carries its own little bit of 'aether'
until it coalesces with all the other little bits to form broad waves. But
most of space is almost devoid of fields (which constitute that aether) and
light travels ballistically through it.  

>But for now relativity is the best model we have.

Gawd! what a terrible suggestion. Einstein's version of relativity has
achieved nothing because it is bogus,

>> >This is not the only example of an assumption in the 1905 paper which must be 
>> >_physically tested_. Another one is, for example, his claim that his definition
>> >of simultaneity 
>> >
>> >Another example of an assumption in Einstein's 1905 paper that must be _physically 
>> >tested_ is when he defines simultaneity and says "we assume that this definition
>> >of synchronism is free of contradictions". I bet 99% of the amateur readers fly
>> >right past that point never bothering to check this. If you do check it, you'll
>> >see that it relies on the following fact (checked experimentally by Fizeau
>> >around 1850 (IIRC) of which Einstein was obviously aware:
>> 
>> Simultaneity is absolute and has nothing whatsoever to do with light or what
>> we humans observe.
>
>Simultaneity is a defined notion in relativity, it's not absolute. 

It is in the real world where normal people live,

>In the
>1905 paper Einstein didn't bother to spell out the proof of the consistency
>of his definition as he was addressing professionals who could check
>this at the back of the envelope in 5 minutes. When you do that (have you
>done that?), you'll see you need Fizeau's result to prove transitivity (of 
>course you know that to prove the consistency you need to show reflexivity, 
>symmetry, and transitivity, don't you? Reflexivity and symmetry are trivial, 
>transitivity requires Fizeau.)

all nonsnese...

>> >   The time it takes for light to travel around a closed triangular path is
>> >the same whether the light goes in one direction around the triangle, or the other.
>> 
>> That's just a TWLS experiment. He is agreeing with BaTh.
>
>Glad to hear that :-)

The main aim at the time was to detect the aether.
 


>
>Devoid of intelligent content to you. Remember you started it by saying:
>
>"They define two clocks to be in synch only when they
>measure the speed of light to be c and then they claim light speed is always c
>when they use those clocks to measure it."

Stupid isn't it! Yet that is what Einstein's whole theory is based on.

>I only pointed out this was incorrect for one obvious reason: if it was
>correct, it would also apply to sound signals (because their speed is also
>independent of the source speed) and YET there are no "acoustic" versions
>in nature of the phenomena like time dilation, Lorentz contraction, etc.
>Do you know why?
>
>OK, I'll answer it: because you don't quite grasp the 2nd postulate.


HHAHAHHHAHAHHHAHAHHAHHA!

I am not in the habit of grasping any form of bovine excrement

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#358934

On 7/28/2015 4:40 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> OK, I'll answer it: because you don't quite grasp the 2nd postulate.
>
> HHAHAHHHAHAHHHAHAHHAHHA!
>
> I am not in the habit of grasping any form of bovine excrement

Yes, that's right, you don't understand the 2nd postulate, as you've 
just said. Instead, you dismiss what you don't understand in the first 
place.

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

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

#359048

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:42:38 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/28/2015 4:40 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> OK, I'll answer it: because you don't quite grasp the 2nd postulate.
>>
>> HHAHAHHHAHAHHHAHAHHAHHA!
>>
>> I am not in the habit of grasping any form of bovine excrement
>
>Yes, that's right, you don't understand the 2nd postulate, as you've 
>just said. Instead, you dismiss what you don't understand in the first 
>place.

Bodkin, amongst other things, the second postulate claims that all light
emitted from any source, anywhere in the universe instantly finds a speed that
is c relative to one completely insignificant planet somewhere out there.

Einstein, like you and all other religious fanatics, obviously believed that
little planet Earth was the centre of the universe.  

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#359308

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:28:17 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/31/2015 3:13 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>>>> P2 claims that light from differently moving sources IMMEDIATELY reach a
>>>> common speed relative to any observer.
>>>> Did you not know that, Bodkin?
>>>
>>> There's no "reach". Light just has that speed. There is no change from
>>> any other value to c, immediate or not.
>>
>> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHA! That is just your religious belief, Bodkin. Can't you see
>> that?
>> Like all such fantasies, there is absolutely no evdence that it is correct.
>
>Oh, but there is.
>The imaginary world you live in is of no interest to anyone but you.

There has never been a OWLS measuremnt using a moving source. Accept the fact
Bodkin.

>>> I didn't run your animation. It isn't relevant.
>>
>> It is very relevant. It demonstrates P2 directly so that idiots can see the
>> folly of it.
>
>I really don't think so. But it doesn't matter because I'm not going to 
>run it anyway.

Well I'll tell you what it does, Bodkin so you will know what Einstein's P2 is
all about. You obviously do not have a clue. It shows a lot of photons coming
from a number sources that are moving at randomly different speeds across the
screen. The photons are all shown to be moving at the same speed relative to
the screen. Do you see anything unusual or unscientfic about that, Bodkin? Are
you, the group's self confessed scientific ignoramus, going to claim that such
an animation does not represent the source independency claim of Einstein's
silly P2?


>>>>>> You can see it in operation right here. www.scisite.info/Einstein's_aether.exe

>> My demonstration is no fantasy. It directly illustates source independency.
>> How would you illustrate is Bodkin?
>> What do you think Einstein meant when he claimed that light from differently
>> moving sources takes the same time to go from A to B?
>
>It means light speed is c (not "reaches c", IS c) from the source, 
>regardless of the motion of the source.

Bodkin, light takes time to go from A to B like anything else. There is
nothing special about light's speed...except that it is very large relative to
its source.

>>
>>> I will therefore conclude that you do not read books, because you don't
>>> own any clothes other than moth-eaten underwear, and because you are
>>> terrified of leaving the house. I will also come to the inescapable
>>> conclusion that you know that you are slowly slipping into dysfunction
>>> and will eventually be taken from your sanctuary, and so you are busily
>>> protecting your ego by declaring everyone else in the human race to be
>>> either idiots or brainwashed or evil.
>>
>> Hhahahhahha! Talking about yourself again. I see.
>>
>> Bodkin, you are not a scientist and could never become one no matter how many
>> books you read. All your reading has done is fill your mind with science
>> fiction.
>
>Well, Henry, you're the solo one. So let's just let you continue your 
>little game that you're the only sensible scientist in the world, shall we?

Bodkin, there is not one good physicist in the world who has ever accepted
Einstein's theory. Only ratbags and sciFi fanatics want to believe the
nonsense.

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#359395

On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 13:07:41 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

>Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> writes:
>
>>There has never been a OWLS measuremnt using a moving source. Accept the fact
>>Bodkin.
>
>Ralph, you keep refusing to read all the evidence Paul Anderson keeps
>posting that refutes that.  As I said before, you're stuck in a loop of
>denial.  No true scientist refuses to look at the evidence.
>
>I'll make things simple so that even you can understand it, Ralph.
>The neutral pion experiment is as follows:
>
>1) Neutral pions moving at .99c are generated by a particle accelerator.
>   There's your moving source.
>2) The pions decay, producing photons.  There's your light generated from 
>   a moving source.

The pions disappear and photons are emitted by THE APPLIED FIELD.

>3) The times the photons pass two detectors a known distance apart is
>   recorded.  They don't go source-mirror-source, it's a one-way trip.
>4) The speed of the photons is calculated by (t2-t1)/d.  There's your 
>   one-way light speed measurement.

wHO SYNCHS THE TWO CLOCKS, MORON-Y?

>BaTh predicts the photons move at .99c+c = 1.99c.  They are measured as
>moving at c.  BaTh is therefore refuted.

diingleberry dreamtime crap!

>So tell us, what, if anything, is wrong with this description of a one-way
>measurement of the speed of light from a moving source?
>
>>>Well, Henry, you're the solo one. So let's just let you continue your 
>>>little game that you're the only sensible scientist in the world, shall we?
>
>>Bodkin, there is not one good physicist in the world who has ever accepted
>>Einstein's theory. Only ratbags and sciFi fanatics want to believe the
>>nonsense.
>
>What about all the physicists who created things like the GPS, particle
>accelerators, communication with NASA spacecraft, etc.?  Explain that!


    We hear lots of Irish jokes...The funniest of all is Michael Moron-y.

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

#360239

Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> writes:

>On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 13:07:41 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
>(Michael Moroney) wrote:

>>Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> writes:
>>
>>>There has never been a OWLS measuremnt using a moving source. Accept the fact
>>>Bodkin.
>>
>>Ralph, you keep refusing to read all the evidence Paul Anderson keeps
>>posting that refutes that.  As I said before, you're stuck in a loop of
>>denial.  No true scientist refuses to look at the evidence.
>>
>>I'll make things simple so that even you can understand it, Ralph.
>>The neutral pion experiment is as follows:
>>
>>1) Neutral pions moving at .99c are generated by a particle accelerator.
>>   There's your moving source.
>>2) The pions decay, producing photons.  There's your light generated from 
>>   a moving source.

>The pions disappear and photons are emitted by THE APPLIED FIELD.

That's just word salad, Ralph.  Go read the paper and tell us what (if
anything) is wrong with it, rather than spewing word salad.

>>3) The times the photons pass two detectors a known distance apart is
>>   recorded.  They don't go source-mirror-source, it's a one-way trip.
>>4) The speed of the photons is calculated by (t2-t1)/d.  There's your 
>>   one-way light speed measurement.

>wHO SYNCHS THE TWO CLOCKS, MORON-Y?

Standard procedures.  The clocks are stationary wrt each other.

>>BaTh predicts the photons move at .99c+c = 1.99c.  They are measured as
>>moving at c.  BaTh is therefore refuted.

>diingleberry dreamtime crap!

No, Ralph.  That's what BaTh predicts.  It predicts the photons move at 
c+v.  The pions move at .99c and c+v is therefore 1.99c.

>>What about all the physicists who created things like the GPS, particle
>>accelerators, communication with NASA spacecraft, etc.?  Explain that!

>    We hear lots of Irish jokes...The funniest of all is Michael Moron-y.

Ralph Malcolm, you didn't answer the question.  What about the GPS, 
particle accelerators, communication with NASA spacecraft, etc.?

And you didn't answer this questions, either, Ralph.  Isn't "Rabbidge" a
good old Irish name?

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

#359396

On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 05:41:40 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:50:39 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>> There has never been a OWLS measuremnt using a moving source.
>
>LIAR!
>
>https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light

There is a change in wavelength on impact with the moving mirror that exactly
cancels the predicted effect. 

>https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>
>https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>
>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.3968v1.pdf
>
>Accept the fact, Henrie-boy, you are profoundly dishonest.

BaTh says that light speed is rapidly modified by the presence of matter or
fields. The only way emission theory can be properly tested is in remote
space. The best way that can be done is to use light from orbiting or
pulsating stars.  


>Gary

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#359411

On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:22:22 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 05:41:40 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:50:39 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> > >
> > > There has never been a OWLS measuremnt using a moving source.
> >
> > LIAR!
> >
> > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light
> 
> There is a change in wavelength on impact with the moving mirror that exactly
> cancels the predicted effect. 

Oh, so now you agree that the wavelength can change!  How clever of you to
finally admit that yet still blatantly deny reality.

> > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> >
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.3968v1.pdf
> >
> > Accept the fact, Ralphie-boy, you are profoundly dishonest.
> 
> BaTh says that light speed is rapidly modified by the presence of matter
> or fields. The only way emission theory can be properly tested is in
> remote space. The best way that can be done is to use light from orbiting
> or pulsating stars.  
> 
> Henry Wilson DSc.

According to your stupidly false BaTh, Babcock and Berman's moving glass
plates should have changed the speed of light to c + v.  It didn't happen.
BaTh is profoundly refuted.

According to your stupidly false BaTh, Beckmann and Mandic's moving
mirror in vacuum experiment should have changed the speed of light to
c + v.  It didn't happen.  BaTh is profoundly refuted.

Brecher's measurement of binary x-ray stars fit your ridiculously-narrowed
requirement, yet they demonstrate that your stupidly-false BaTh is roundly
refuted.  And using pulsating stars is complete bullshit.

Bad things happen when ignorance and arrogance reside in the same person.

Gary

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

#359487

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:23:31 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:22:22 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>> > LIAR!
>> >
>> > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light
>> 
>> There is a change in wavelength on impact with the moving mirror that exactly
>> cancels the predicted effect. 
>
>Oh, so now you agree that the wavelength can change!  How clever of you to
>finally admit that yet still blatantly deny reality.
>
>> > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>> >
>> > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>> >
>> > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.3968v1.pdf
>> >
>> > Accept the fact, Ralphie-boy, you are profoundly dishonest.
>> 
>> BaTh says that light speed is rapidly modified by the presence of matter
>> or fields. The only way emission theory can be properly tested is in
>> remote space. The best way that can be done is to use light from orbiting
>> or pulsating stars.  
>> 
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>According to your stupidly false BaTh, Babcock and Berman's moving glass
>plates should have changed the speed of light to c + v.  It didn't happen.
>BaTh is profoundly refuted.
>
>According to your stupidly false BaTh, Beckmann and Mandic's moving
>mirror in vacuum experiment should have changed the speed of light to
>c + v.  It didn't happen.  BaTh is profoundly refuted.

It did not measure the speed of light, idiot.

>Brecher's measurement of binary x-ray stars fit your ridiculously-narrowed
>requirement, yet they demonstrate that your stupidly-false BaTh is roundly
>refuted.  And using pulsating stars is complete bullshit.
>
>Bad things happen when ignorance and arrogance reside in the same person.
>
>Gary

__

Henry Wilson DSc.

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

#359496

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 4:03:19 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:23:31 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > According to your stupidly false BaTh, Beckmann and Mandic's moving
> > mirror in vacuum experiment should have changed the speed of light to
> > c + v.  It didn't happen.  BaTh is profoundly refuted.
> 
> It did not measure the speed of light, idiot.

Idiot yourself!  It detected NO CHANGE in the speed of light when the plates
were nonmoving and moving.  Hence, your stupid BaTh is dead meat.

> > Brecher's measurement of binary x-ray stars fit your ridiculously-narrowed
> > requirement, yet they demonstrate that your stupidly-false BaTh is roundly
> > refuted.  And using pulsating stars is complete bullshit.
> >
> > Bad things happen when ignorance and arrogance reside in the same person.
> >
> > Gary
> 
> Henry Wilson DSc.

No rebuttal to Brecher, Ralphie-boy?  And your sophistry-laden, false response
to Beckmann and Mandic was really, really sad.  Face it, Ralphie-boy, your
BaTh is just dirty BaThwater.

Gary

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

#359570

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:23:31 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:22:22 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>> > > There has never been a OWLS measuremnt using a moving source.
>> >
>> > LIAR!
>> >
>> > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light
>> 
>> There is a change in wavelength on impact with the moving mirror that exactly
>> cancels the predicted effect. 
>
>Oh, so now you agree that the wavelength can change!  How clever of you to
>finally admit that yet still blatantly deny reality.

It is not a conventional change. There is a change in absolute wavelength when
photon accelerates. It is part of the world shattering ADoppler effect that I
have personally discovered. 
What great discoveries has an idiot like you ever come up with?. 

>> > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>> >
>> > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>> >
>> > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.3968v1.pdf
>> >
>> > Accept the fact, Ralphie-boy, you are profoundly dishonest.
>> 
>> BaTh says that light speed is rapidly modified by the presence of matter
>> or fields. The only way emission theory can be properly tested is in
>> remote space. The best way that can be done is to use light from orbiting
>> or pulsating stars.  
>> 
>> Henry Wilson DSc.
>
>According to your stupidly false BaTh, Babcock and Berman's moving glass
>plates should have changed the speed of light to c + v.  It didn't happen.
>BaTh is profoundly refuted.

Listen dopey, not one of these experiments directly measures light speed. It is
all done with mirrors and interference patterns and every such experiment is
riddled with so many assumptions and guesses that can provide just about any
desired answer. Not one of your experiments or those on PA's silly list are
worth a pinch of rocking horse shit.

>According to your stupidly false BaTh, Beckmann and Mandic's moving
>mirror in vacuum experiment should have changed the speed of light to
>c + v.  It didn't happen.  BaTh is profoundly refuted.
>
>Brecher's measurement of binary x-ray stars fit your ridiculously-narrowed
>requirement, yet they demonstrate that your stupidly-false BaTh is roundly
>refuted.  And using pulsating stars is complete bullshit.
>
>Bad things happen when ignorance and arrogance reside in the same person.
>
>Gary

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

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

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

csiph-web