Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #401646 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-14 05:37 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-12-21 07:54 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 125 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-14 05:37 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Zaida Orvis <iOsddiosaa@iOsddi.saa.iOs> - 2016-12-13 20:31 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 22:35 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Odilia Blatt <Bditttaliol@Bditttali.l.org> - 2016-12-13 21:39 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-16 18:54 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 17:04 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-14 12:14 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-13 20:37 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-14 22:24 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-15 06:47 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-15 12:24 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 14:23 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2016-12-15 01:23 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-12-14 19:08 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-15 21:06 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-15 03:28 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-15 22:41 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 08:35 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-16 13:21 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 19:08 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-16 19:11 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 08:02 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 09:30 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 08:29 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-18 09:02 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 09:08 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-19 08:56 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-12-18 14:39 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-19 21:06 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 04:11 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-19 04:57 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 17:32 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 05:21 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-15 15:30 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-15 07:08 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 08:48 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-15 14:21 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-16 13:19 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-16 19:11 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-16 22:35 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-16 13:35 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 09:07 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-16 20:56 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-17 19:30 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2016-12-17 11:38 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-17 04:46 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-17 16:20 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-17 16:14 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 08:40 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-17 21:49 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 16:38 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-17 23:17 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 20:24 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 15:13 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-18 16:13 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 20:14 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-19 15:11 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-19 20:59 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-19 22:44 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 03:57 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-20 09:01 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 14:29 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-18 02:05 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-20 22:49 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-21 19:36 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-21 13:45 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-22 08:11 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-22 10:08 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 09:31 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-23 06:06 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-22 12:20 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 08:10 -0600
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-23 08:14 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Demetrice Barren <teercere@tmerunin.tme> - 2016-12-28 21:48 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-29 11:01 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 08:32 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-28 21:21 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 08:45 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-29 18:35 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 14:33 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-29 21:04 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-30 19:23 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 07:01 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-31 07:41 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-30 15:11 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-31 15:15 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-01 13:37 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-01 05:42 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-02 05:52 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-01 12:06 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-02 07:33 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-01 13:38 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-01 15:37 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2017-01-02 05:57 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-18 02:10 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-18 15:21 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 05:20 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-19 21:03 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 17:43 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-19 09:07 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-19 21:20 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Mitzi Gilliard <iotoor@iGMaMiai.org> - 2016-12-20 04:07 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-19 18:57 +0100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-16 18:19 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 15:03 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 15:12 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 15:19 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 15:55 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 19:10 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 19:25 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-16 03:57 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-16 04:37 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-18 02:32 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-16 03:55 -0800
Mentally ill Jay Mosley escapes the local insane asylum and starts blogging again "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 10:04 -0800
Mentally ill Jay Mosley escapes the local insane asylum and starts blogging again jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-12-18 02:33 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 10:48 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 10:49 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 14:39 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-20 11:18 +1100
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-19 18:38 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. Mitzi Gilliard <iotoor@iGMaMiai.org> - 2016-12-20 04:04 +0000
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 16:28 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 10:09 -0800
Re: Digital Light Signals Prove Einstein Wrong. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-21 07:54 +1100
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 21:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ba905c56-89a5-42f6-bd43-a57bfeed5274@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403422 |
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 8:33:59 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > On 30/12/16 13:35, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > > > > > I will try to teach you something interesting. > > > As you might have noticed when you looked at: > > > www.scisite.info/bathgrating.jpg > > > gratings should also be sensitive to incoming light speed since that > > > determines wave arrival rate. However, the diffraction angles will only > > > be depend on incoming light speed IF the reflected/transmitted beam > > > moves at a speed that is NOT the incoming one. > > > Since gratings DO measure Doppler shifts, this is an indication that > > > light arriving at a reflecting mirror at c+v will reflect at c relative > > > to the mirror rather than at c+v. > > > > > > But I could be wrong....I was once...There could be other factors > > > involved.. > > > > > > -- > > > > You have even asserted them. How about an extinction effect where light > > travels at c wrt the medium it travels through? The only way that c + v > > can be measured is in a vacuum, and we have tons of data that demonstrates > > that light does not partake of the velocity of the source in a vacuum, so > > your c + v baloney is refuted BY COPIOUS EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE despite > > your dishonest, delusional, cacophonous assertions. > > Bullshit. There has never been one experiment that shows light speed is > not source dependent like everything else. You are RIGHT. There is not ONE such experiment, there are VERY, VERY MANY experiments that refute your stupid unfounded assertion. > Ralphie-boy's whole theory is one great fairytale held in place by a > demented Conspiracy-of-One, of which Ralphie-boy is a pathetic crank. > > Everyone knows that the Principle of Relativity as described by Galileo > > shows that "motion of the observer" is a fiction. Furthermore, if a > > source is moving toward the observer, it is likewise obvious that wave > > peaks will be closer together, thus THE LIGHT WILL HAVE A SHORTER WAVELENGTH > > than that measured in the frame where the source and detector are > > stationary. > > Fucking moron! "If you can't be interesting without profanity, then let's face it: You're not that interesting." -- Michael Hyatt > Do you really think the light cares how its source is > moving towards anything? I'm glad you have finally admitted that the speed of light doesn't care about the motion of the source. You have a very serious disease, it's called foot-in-mouth disease :-)) > > No "magic" involved, Ralphie-boy. Just a proper point of view. > > ...there was plenty of magic involved in producing an idiot like you. > You're so stupid it is almost beyond belief. So you admit that you can't refute my argument so you sink to personal attack and prove that you are a lying hypocrite. Good show! > > “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may > > deride it, but in the end, there it is.” -- Winston Churchill And the truth stands in the light. It shines everywhere except in the demented mind of degenerate Ralphie-boy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 19:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o455h9$1cp5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #403430 |
On 30/12/16 16:04, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 8:33:59 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: >> Bullshit. There has never been one experiment that shows light speed is >> not source dependent like everything else. > > You are RIGHT. There is not ONE such experiment, there are VERY, VERY > MANY experiments that refute your stupid unfounded assertion. I gather you are referring to the millions of TWLS experiments that prove BaTh correct.. > > "If you can't be interesting without profanity, then let's face it: You're not > that interesting." -- Michael Hyatt > >> Do you really think the light cares how its source is >> moving towards anything? > > I'm glad you have finally admitted that the speed of light doesn't care > about the motion of the source. You have a very serious disease, it's called > foot-in-mouth disease :-)) Poor fool! Light has only one reference, its source...that is unless you believe Einstein's aether exists. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 07:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f2ac9de3-3fef-4215-8957-8ffd415e07f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403444 |
On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 1:23:08 AM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > On 30/12/16 16:04, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 8:33:59 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > > > > > Bullshit. There has never been one experiment that shows light speed is > > > not source dependent like everything else. > > > > You are RIGHT. There is not ONE such experiment, there are VERY, VERY > > MANY experiments that refute your stupid unfounded assertion. > > I gather you are referring to the millions of TWLS experiments that > prove BaTh correct.. I gather they you persist in your delusionary fantasies. > > "If you can't be interesting without profanity, then let's face it: > > You're not that interesting." -- Michael Hyatt > > > > > Do you really think the light cares how its source is > > > moving towards anything? > > > > I'm glad you have finally admitted that the speed of light doesn't care > > about the motion of the source. You have a very serious disease, it's > > called foot-in-mouth disease :-)) > > Poor fool! Light has only one reference, its source...that is unless you > believe Einstein's aether exists. So now you're denying that you said "Do you really think the light cares how its source is moving towards anything?" You are a two-faced liar and an extremely entertaining clown.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 07:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o46gqk$6kd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #403481 |
On 31/12/16 02:01, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> Do you really think the light cares how its source is >>>> moving towards anything? >>> >>> I'm glad you have finally admitted that the speed of light doesn't care >>> about the motion of the source. You have a very serious disease, it's >>> called foot-in-mouth disease :-)) >> >> Poor fool! Light has only one reference, its source...that is unless you >> believe Einstein's aether exists. > > So now you're denying that you said "Do you really think the light cares how > its source is moving towards anything?" > > You are a two-faced liar and an extremely entertaining clown. Poor little gary! A light source is never 'moving'. It can be considered at rest and everything else is moving relative to it. When light leaves its source, it doesn't give a fuck about the movement of anything else. Its source is its ONLY speed reference. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 15:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <750c7f78-9706-46ee-856b-c5fa64a45656@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403512 |
On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 1:42:00 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > On 31/12/16 02:01, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > Do you really think the light cares how its source is > > > > > moving towards anything? > > > > > > > > I'm glad you have finally admitted that the speed of light doesn't care > > > > about the motion of the source. You have a very serious disease, it's > > > > called foot-in-mouth disease :-)) > > > > > > Poor fool! Light has only one reference, its source...that is unless you > > > believe Einstein's aether exists. > > > > So now you're denying that you said "Do you really think the light cares how > > its source is moving towards anything?" > > > > You are a two-faced liar and an extremely entertaining clown. > > Poor little gary! A light source is never 'moving'. It can be considered > at rest and everything else is moving relative to it. Complete, lying bullshit wherein you repudiate your previous positions: "Do you really think the light cares how its source is moving towards anything?" You are full of bullshit from foot to head. > When light leaves its source, it doesn't give a fuck about the movement > of anything else. Its source is its ONLY speed reference. I proved that you were full of shit before and your own words prove that you still are. You are a lying, hypocritical weasel-wording troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 15:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o48eir$8hi$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #403381 |
On 29.12.2016 22:45, HGW wrote: > On 29/12/16 07:21, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 22.12.2016 22:14, HGW wrote: >>> On 22/12/16 20:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> On 21.12.2016 22:11, HGW wrote: >>>>> On 21/12/16 23:45, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Can you measure lambda? >>>>>> How? >>>>> >>>>> Easily.....very easily. ...if you enrol in physics1 you will learn >>>>> about >>>>> gratings and interferometers. >>>> >>>> So grating spectrometers measure wavelength? >>>> >>>> >>>> Since you now admit that grating spectrometers measure wavelength >>>> you know that wavelength is Doppler shifted which falsifies >>>> ballistic/emission theories. >>>> >>>> Well done, Ralph! >>> >>> You should know that...but they are also sensitive to the wave arrival >>> speed of the light...so if you want to measure a wavelength accurately, >>> the source must be at rest with the grating. Here are the basics: >>> www.scisite.info/bathgrating.jpg So I should know that grating spectrometers measure wavelength, but I should also know that when they measure wavelength to be Doppler shifted, then they do not measure wavelength at all but the speed of the incoming light. So when the Ly-alpha line from a quasar appears to be Doppler shifted from 1215.67A to 7294.02A, this is a Willusion, because the wavelength is still 1215.67A, but the speed of the light is c/6. >>>> >>>> | On 10.01.2010 11:02, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>> |> Starlight is flowing from somewhere to somewhere. A grating gets in the way and >>>> |> diffracts a particular line to a certain angle, supposedly determined SOLELY by >>>> |> the light's 'wavelength'. >>>> |> Another identical grating moving wrt the first also gets in the way of the >>>> |> light. It also diffracts the line but to different angle...Why does this happen >>>> |> when wavelength is the sole determining factor? >>>> |> >>>> |> ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT THE MOVING GRATING HAS SOMEHOW CHANGED THE LIGHT'S >>>> |> INTRINSIC PROPERTIES? >>>> |> >>>> |> Of course, the real reason is that gratings are sensitive not to wavelength but >>>> |> to 'wavecrest arrival rate' and that changes with relative light speed. Light has no frequency in transit, but it has a series of wave crests which will will hit the detector with a frequency. :-) >> So grating spectrometers don't measure wavelength? >> >> So we are back to my questions: >> Can you measure lambda? >> How? > > Paul, why do you think a great deal of effort went into engraving fine > and accurately spaced lines on gratings? > > From you ignorance of the basics, I can only assume you are not > qualified in physics. > > I will try to teach you something interesting. > As you might have noticed when you looked at: > www.scisite.info/bathgrating.jpg > gratings should also be sensitive to incoming light speed since that > determines wave arrival rate. However, the diffraction angles will only > be depend on incoming light speed IF the reflected/transmitted beam > moves at a speed that is NOT the incoming one. If a ballistic theory predicts that the reflected/transmitted beam moves at a speed which is different from the incoming one, then the theory is inconsistent. > Since gratings DO measure Doppler shifts, this is an indication that > light arriving at a reflecting mirror at c+v will reflect at c relative > to the mirror rather than at c+v. This logic is hilarious! (as everybody but you will see) Thanks for the laugh! > > But I could be wrong....I was once...There could be other factors > involved.. > Well, well Ralph. I have had my fun for now. But I must say that the subject line really did shock me since it indicates that you have lost the last rest of your mind. I hope for your sake that you wrote it while drunk, and according to your MO found it impossible to admit that you had made a blunder. But maybe I am ridiculing a half-wit. And that isn't nice! Happy new year! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 13:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o49q24$1bhb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #403600 |
On 01/01/17 01:15, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 29.12.2016 22:45, HGW wrote: >>>>>>> Can you measure lambda? >>>>> Since you now admit that grating spectrometers measure >>>>> wavelength you know that wavelength is Doppler shifted which >>>>> falsifies ballistic/emission theories. >>>>> >>>>> Well done, Henry! >>>> >>>> You should know that...but they are also sensitive to the wave >>>> arrival speed of the light...so if you want to measure a >>>> wavelength accurately, the source must be at rest with the >>>> grating. Here are the basics: www.scisite.info/bathgrating.jpg > > So I should know that grating spectrometers measure wavelength, but I > should also know that when they measure wavelength to be Doppler > shifted, then they do not measure wavelength at all but the speed of > the incoming light. > > So when the Ly-alpha line from a quasar appears to be Doppler shifted > from 1215.67A to 7294.02A, this is a Willusion, because the > wavelength is still 1215.67A, but the speed of the light is c/6. There are several possibilities here. Firstly, is is apparent that the Ly-alpha line has experienced ADoppler shift and is therefore not an indicator of the speeds of either the incoming light or the quasar. Any astronomer who uses it in that way will be making a huge mistake. Secondly, as shown in my illustration, a grating would NOT measure VDoppler shifts IF the reflected/transmitted light moved at the same as the incident light. Because they do, this answers one of physics' great mysteries. Light reflect at c relative to the mirror and not c+v. >>>>> |> |> ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT THE MOVING GRATING HAS SOMEHOW >>>>> CHANGED THE LIGHT'S |> INTRINSIC PROPERTIES? |> |> Of course, >>>>> the real reason is that gratings are sensitive not to >>>>> wavelength but |> to 'wavecrest arrival rate' and that >>>>> changes with relative light speed. > > Light has no frequency in transit, but it has a series of wave crests > which will will hit the detector with a frequency. :-) That is quite obvious...Just like a radio signal. ...and you got something right at last >>> So grating spectrometers don't measure wavelength? >>> >>> So we are back to my questions: Can you measure lambda? How? >> >> Paul, why do you think a great deal of effort went into engraving >> fine and accurately spaced lines on gratings? >> >> From you ignorance of the basics, I can only assume you are not >> qualified in physics. >> >> I will try to teach you something interesting. As you might have >> noticed when you looked at: www.scisite.info/bathgrating.jpg >> gratings should also be sensitive to incoming light speed since >> that determines wave arrival rate. However, the diffraction angles >> will only be depend on incoming light speed IF the >> reflected/transmitted beam moves at a speed that is NOT the >> incoming one. > > If a ballistic theory predicts that the reflected/transmitted beam > moves at a speed which is different from the incoming one, then the > theory is inconsistent. ....no it is not. It is your illogic that is consistent. >> Since gratings DO measure Doppler shifts, this is an indication >> that light arriving at a reflecting mirror at c+v will reflect at c >> relative to the mirror rather than at c+v. > > This logic is hilarious! (as everybody but you will see) Thanks for > the laugh! Paul, you seem to be particularly stubborn today. THE OWLS of a light signal that is reflected from a moving mirror has never been measured one ONE side let alone both. So you should be extremely impressed by my world shattering discovery,,,,one that solves an ancient mystery. You have absolutely NO reason to suspect that I am wrong or have drawn a strange conclusion. Only a drunk or a fool would laugh at such a significant discovery. > Well, well Henry. I have had my fun for now. > > But I must say that the subject line really did shock me since it > indicates that you have lost the last rest of your mind. I hope for > your sake that you wrote it while drunk, and according to your MO > found it impossible to admit that you had made a blunder. > > But maybe I am ridiculing a half-wit. And that isn't nice! > > Happy new year! It should be. It will surely see the end of Einstein. Keeping sipping that aquavit.... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 05:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6717a01b-942f-4296-aa52-8efc5a2bbccd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403658 |
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 7:37:59 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > There are several possibilities here. Firstly, is is apparent that the > Ly-alpha line has experienced ADoppler shift and is therefore not an > indicator of the speeds of either the incoming light or the quasar. There is no indication of acceleration, so claiming there is, is assertion without evidence. > Any astronomer who uses it in that way will be making a huge mistake. Fortunately, astronomers don't make the mistake of using ballistic theory. > Secondly, as shown in my illustration, a grating would NOT measure > VDoppler shifts IF the reflected/transmitted light moved at the same as > the incident light. In that case sin(phi) = Lambda/D. It is OBVIOUS that light from a moving source has a different wavelength than a stationary source but it still travels at c. That is, it's obvious to smart people. > Because they do, this answers one of physics' great > mysteries. Light reflect at c relative to the mirror and not c+v. Actually, most grating spectrometers operate in air, so by your own claims, incoming light would be traveling at c wrt the air due to the hypothetical extinction effect. Thus the gratings will faithfully measure wavelength. Note that the hypothetical extinction argument asserts that incoming light purportedly traveling at c + v has a certain energy and a certain frequency as measured from a point at rest wrt the medium (air). The velocity of the light changes from c + v wrt the medium to c in the medium, so the wave- length will change from Lambda to Lambda' = Lambda*c/(c + v). So it's as if the speed of the incoming light is completely unimportant. > THE OWLS of a light signal that is reflected from a moving mirror has > never been measured one ONE side let alone both. This is Ralphie-boy's perennial obfuscation, but it is completely irrelevant. Roundtrip lightspeed measurements have been made, in vacuum no less, with moving mirrors, and confirm that it is c both ways. This is obvious to anyone with SOME knowledge of algebra: A stationary source sends a light pulse to a moving mirror located a distance d away. It strikes the mirror and is reflected back at c + v. The time it takes to go from source to mirror is d/c, but the time it takes to return is d?(c + v). So the total time is (d/c)*[1 + c/(c + v)]. The difference between SR and ballistic theory is v*d/[c*(c + v)]. > [Outrageous boasting deleted] > > Happy new year! > > It should be. It will surely see the end of Einstein. And delusional beliefs left in for humorous intent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 05:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o4bj57$12c9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #403686 |
On 02/01/17 00:42, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 7:37:59 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: >> >> There are several possibilities here. Firstly, is is apparent that the >> Ly-alpha line has experienced ADoppler shift and is therefore not an >> indicator of the speeds of either the incoming light or the quasar. > > There is no indication of acceleration, so claiming there is, is assertion > without evidence. Idiot! The wavelength shift IS the indication of source acceleration at the time of emission. The escaping light will also slow down dramatically under gravity...and that also causes ADoppler. >> Any astronomer who uses it in that way will be making a huge mistake. > > Fortunately, astronomers don't make the mistake of using ballistic theory. Any astronomer who assumes light travels at the same speed across space is making a huge mistake. >> Secondly, as shown in my illustration, a grating would NOT measure >> VDoppler shifts IF the reflected/transmitted light moved at the same as >> the incident light. > > In that case sin(phi) = Lambda/D. It is OBVIOUS that light from a moving > source has a different wavelength than a stationary source but it still > travels at c. That is, it's obvious to smart people. Idiot! When light leaves its source, it is not in any way influenced by what an infinite number of observers are doing. >> Because they do, this answers one of physics' great >> mysteries. Light reflect at c relative to the mirror and not c+v. > > Actually, most grating spectrometers operate in air, so by your own claims, > incoming light would be traveling at c wrt the air due to the hypothetical > extinction effect. Thus the gratings will faithfully measure wavelength. Idiot! The wavelength will have changed accordingly during extinction. > Note that the hypothetical extinction argument asserts that incoming light > purportedly traveling at c + v has a certain energy and a certain frequency > as measured from a point at rest wrt the medium (air). The velocity of the > light changes from c + v wrt the medium to c in the medium, so the wave- > length will change from Lambda to Lambda' = Lambda*c/(c + v). So it's as > if the speed of the incoming light is completely unimportant. Clever little fellow! That is correct. the wavelengths change during the speed change..... But do gratings OUTSIDE the ISS measure Doppler shifts? >> THE OWLS of a light signal that is reflected from a moving mirror has >> never been measured one ONE side let alone both. > > This is Henrie-boy's perennial obfuscation, but it is completely irrelevant. > Roundtrip lightspeed measurements have been made, in vacuum no less, with > moving mirrors, and confirm that it is c both ways. This is obvious to > anyone with SOME knowledge of algebra: > > A stationary source sends a light pulse to a moving mirror located a > distance d away. It strikes the mirror and is reflected back at c + v. > The time it takes to go from source to mirror is d/c, but the time it > takes to return is d?(c + v). So the total time is (d/c)*[1 + c/(c + v)]. > The difference between SR and ballistic theory is v*d/[c*(c + v)]. Idiot! Those experiments all used interferometry, not clocks. Interferometry is NOT sensitive to light speed. >> [Outrageous boasting deleted] > >>> Happy new year! >> >> It should be. It will surely see the end of Einstein. > > And delusional beliefs left in for humorous intent. > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 12:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dea0b945-45b3-4778-aff7-ce4ed1928953@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403714 |
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 11:52:28 AM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > On 02/01/17 00:42, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 7:37:59 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > > > > > There are several possibilities here. Firstly, is is apparent that the > > > Ly-alpha line has experienced ADoppler shift and is therefore not an > > > indicator of the speeds of either the incoming light or the quasar. > > > > There is no indication of acceleration, so claiming there is, is assertion > > without evidence. > > Idiot! The wavelength shift IS the indication of source acceleration at > the time of emission. The escaping light will also slow down > dramatically under gravity...and that also causes ADoppler. Says the abysmally-stupid atheistic delusional nonscientist. Who in his right mind would believe such drivel? > > > Any astronomer who uses it in that way will be making a huge mistake. > > > > Fortunately, astronomers don't make the mistake of using ballistic theory. > > Any astronomer who assumes light travels at the same speed across space > is making a huge mistake. Says the abysmally-stupid atheistic delusional nonscientist. Who in his right mind would believe such drivel? > > > Secondly, as shown in my illustration, a grating would NOT measure > > > VDoppler shifts IF the reflected/transmitted light moved at the same as > > > the incident light. > > > > In that case sin(phi) = Lambda/D. It is OBVIOUS that light from a moving > > source has a different wavelength than a stationary source but it still > > travels at c. That is, it's obvious to smart people. > > Idiot! When light leaves its source, it is not in any way influenced by > what an infinite number of observers are doing. So now you're contradicting what you said earlier. My, but you are being irrational. > > > Because they do, this answers one of physics' great > > > mysteries. Light reflect at c relative to the mirror and not c+v. > > > > Actually, most grating spectrometers operate in air, so by your own claims, > > incoming light would be traveling at c wrt the air due to the hypothetical > > extinction effect. Thus the gratings will faithfully measure wavelength. > > Idiot! You really should stop calling yourself that. Although it's true, you must maintain a degree of self-respect. > The wavelength will have changed accordingly during extinction. Exactly what I said. So we agree and that proves that you're not an idiot. But what you fail to admit is that the grating now measures a shift in wavelength from that measured by a grating stationary wrt the source. > > Note that the hypothetical extinction argument asserts that incoming light > > purportedly traveling at c + v has a certain energy and a certain frequency > > as measured from a point at rest wrt the medium (air). The velocity of the > > light changes from c + v wrt the medium to c in the medium, so the wave- > > length will change from Lambda to Lambda' = Lambda*c/(c + v). So it's as > > if the speed of the incoming light is completely unimportant. > > Clever little fellow! That is correct. the wavelengths change during the > speed change..... But do gratings OUTSIDE the ISS measure Doppler shifts? Actually, they do, as well as gratings in the Cassini IR spectrometer. > > > THE OWLS of a light signal that is reflected from a moving mirror has > > > never been measured one ONE side let alone both. > > > > This is Stupid Ralphie-boy's perennial obfuscation, but it is completely > > irrelevant. > > Roundtrip lightspeed measurements have been made, in vacuum no less, with > > moving mirrors, and confirm that it is c both ways. This is obvious to > > anyone with SOME knowledge of algebra: > > > > A stationary source sends a light pulse to a moving mirror located a > > distance d away. It strikes the mirror and is reflected back at c + v. > > The time it takes to go from source to mirror is d/c, but the time it > > takes to return is d?(c + v). So the total time is (d/c)*[1 + c/(c + v)]. > > The difference between SR and ballistic theory is v*d/[c*(c + v)]. > > Idiot! Those experiments all used interferometry, not clocks. > Interferometry is NOT sensitive to light speed. Idiot! I didn't say ANYTHING about interferometry. Anyone with a smidgeon of intelligence could see from the equations that they refer to TIME-OF- FLIGHT, not wave phenomena. Sorry, but you flunked the IQ test. > > > [Outrageous boasting deleted] > > > > > > Happy new year! > > > > > > It should be. It will surely see the end of Einstein. > > > > And delusional beliefs left in for humorous intent. “I’m laughing at your 'superior' intellect.” – James T. Kirk :-)))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 07:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o4bp1r$1bid$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #403722 |
On 02/01/17 07:06, Gary Harnagel proved he is not in his right mind:
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 13:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <00978c25-33ed-41b8-9d2f-7d34d2800acf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #403724 |
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 1:33:02 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > On 02/01/17 07:06, Gary Harnagel proved he is not in his right mind: At the same time, "Ralphie-boy" Wilso proved that he doesn't HAVE a mind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 15:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o4b46n$4uj$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #403658 |
On 01.01.2017 03:37, HGW wrote: > On 01/01/17 01:15, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> Happy new year! > > It should be. It will surely see the end of Einstein. Wasn't that last year? > > Keeping sipping that aquavit.... Will do! Right now my wife is preparing the lutefisk. (really!) And no lutefisk without aquavit and beer! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutefisk -- Paul, drooling https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 05:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o4bjf3$12oj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #403692 |
On 02/01/17 01:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 01.01.2017 03:37, HGW wrote: >> On 01/01/17 01:15, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> Happy new year! >> >> It should be. It will surely see the end of Einstein. > > Wasn't that last year? > >> >> Keeping sipping that aquavit.... > > Will do! > > Right now my wife is preparing the lutefisk. (really!) > And no lutefisk without aquavit and beer! > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutefisk That sounds like a lot of trouble...I'm not sure if I would want to eat it after all that exposure to bacteria.... ..and beer causes gout and loss of brain cells....red wine is the only safe drink. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 02:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o34r78$ok$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #402146 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >> I have to check the old k00k rating index. Using a phrase like "I am the >> only person in the world to discover X, so I must be the smartest person >> in the world" must be worth a whole lot of k00k points. >It is quite obvious that I am the only physicist who has realized that a >traveling radio wave DOES NOT possess a frequency. I therefore have good >reason to be proud of the fact that I have corrected one of physics' >greatest misunderstandings. My only hope is that some attention will be >given to the nature of fields and mechanism that provides light and >radio signals with a spatial structure that is retained during long term >travel. Awesome job, Ralph! That rant invoking a self-awarded title as well as the "I am the only person in the world to discover X, so I must be the greatest!" argument was really awesome! I will ask that you get awarded double, no triple k00k points for that!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 15:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o352rm$qvj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402154 |
On 18/12/16 13:10, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: > >>> I have to check the old k00k rating index. Using a phrase like "I am the >>> only person in the world to discover X, so I must be the smartest person >>> in the world" must be worth a whole lot of k00k points. > >> It is quite obvious that I am the only physicist who has realized that a >> traveling radio wave DOES NOT possess a frequency. I therefore have good >> reason to be proud of the fact that I have corrected one of physics' >> greatest misunderstandings. My only hope is that some attention will be >> given to the nature of fields and mechanism that provides light and >> radio signals with a spatial structure that is retained during long term >> travel. > > Awesome job, Henry! That rant invoking a self-awarded title as well as the > "I am the only person in the world to discover X, so I must be the > greatest!" argument was really awesome! I will ask that you get awarded > double, no triple k00k points for that! Moron-y, it doesn't surprise me one iota that a scientific ignoramus such as yourself does not have the faintest understanding of what I am talking about. After all, the whole scientific world has been and still is taught that a radio signal has a frequency when in fact no radio signal ever had one of those at all. The only oscillations involved in radio transmission occur in the antenna and the receiver. ...but that's far too hard for you. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 05:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o37qm7$b22$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #402164 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 18/12/16 13:10, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Awesome job, Henry! Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, how can you make any statements on science, Ralph, if you can't even remember your own name, Ralph Rabbidge! Ralph, it appears that I need to remind you of your name (which is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) again and again, Ralph! >> That rant invoking a self-awarded title as well as the >> "I am the only person in the world to discover X, so I must be the >> greatest!" argument was really awesome! I will ask that you get awarded >> double, no triple k00k points for that! >Moron-y, it doesn't surprise me one iota that a scientific ignoramus >such as yourself does not have the faintest understanding of what I am >talking about. Ralph Malcolm, I know perfectly well what you are talking about, Ralph. Ralph, k00ks who think they are the smartest person in the world and award themselves undeserved titles because they are the only one to discover X are a dime a dozen in here, Ralph. You (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge), the tornado guy, Archie Plutonium just to name a few, plenty of other k00ks no longer active here as well, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 21:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o38b9t$1f1n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #402248 |
On 19/12/16 16:20, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: > >> Moron-y, it doesn't surprise me one iota that a scientific ignoramus >> such as yourself does not have the faintest understanding of what I am >> talking about. > >vHenry George, I know perfectly well what you are talking about, Henry. > Henry, k00ks who think they are the smartest person in the world and award > themselves undeserved titles because they are the only one to discover X > are a dime a dozen in here, Henry. You Henrythe > tornado guy, Archie Plutonium just to name a few, plenty of other k00ks no > longer active here as well, Henry. Well you are obviously one of the biggest kooks here. <plonk>?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o3968v$e6h$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #402267 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 19/12/16 16:20, Michael Moroney wrote: >> HGW <hw@....> writes: >> >>> Moron-y, it doesn't surprise me one iota that a scientific ignoramus >>> such as yourself does not have the faintest understanding of what I am >>> talking about. >> >>vHenry George, I know perfectly well what you are talking about, Henry. >> Henry, k00ks who think they are the smartest person in the world and award >> themselves undeserved titles because they are the only one to discover X >> are a dime a dozen in here, Henry. You Henrythe >> tornado guy, Archie Plutonium just to name a few, plenty of other k00ks no >> longer active here as well, Henry. >Well you are obviously one of the biggest kooks here. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, it looks like you're really getting rather clumsy when you were editing my post, Ralph. Too much to drink, Ralph Malcolm? Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, why are you so ashamed of your name, Ralph? Ralph, you seem to have an anti-Irish bent, perhaps you are ashamed of "Rabbidge" being a fine Irish name from the lovely Emerald Isle, Ralph? So you pick a nice WASPish fake name like "Wilson", Ralph? ><plonk>? Go ahead and hide, Ralph, just like you hide from those nice writeups Paul Andersen keeps telling you to read (but you won't), Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 09:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o384e6$h0v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402072 |
On 16.12.2016 23:07, HGW wrote: > > Radio waves do not have a frequency. > The reason you do not understand that is the simple fact that I appear > to be the only person in the whole history of physics that has realized > it. That makes me smarter than the rest...and you should feel privileged > to be one of the first to be enlightened. .. and Ralph Malcom Rabbidge is dead serious! Well, well, Ralph. It has been fun, but now the end seem to be reached reached. Sad. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web