Excitement in high energy physics, really high energy

Here is an interesting link;

http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/SN.html

Where I found
[quote]
Although the details of how the pulsar's rotational energy is
transformed into the luminous energy of the nebula, this agreement was
too good to be coincidence --- astronomers were certain that the
elusive neutron stars had been discovered! Anthony Hewish later shared
in the Nobel Prize for the discovery of pulsars.
[UNQUOTE]

Is that an incomplete sentence, or what?

I have always wondered how the rotational energy
was transferred to luminous energy or emitted energy or
gravitational radiation, in the quote above what are the
missing words, could they be "is not known"?

This is not a criticism, it is a sincere question.

But after saying that, I have to say I don't like
the rotation pulse premise, a real pulsation would seem
to fit the double pulse period better, a bright pulse and
a less bright pulse.

I just got an idea.

If the bright pulse in visible light coincides with a
bright x-ray or gamma pulse, then maybe the pulse is
due to rotation and magnetic fields.
If the _less_ bright pulse in visible light coincides
with the strong x-ray or gamma pulse, then maybe the
pulses are the result of a real pulsation (I will explain
this premise on request).
A real pulsation should be present in a newly
compressed star, and it should damp out with time
in a more natural way than any complex rotation and
magnetic field processes.

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:

Here is an interesting link;

http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/SN.html

Where I found
[quote]
Although the details of how the pulsar's rotational energy is
transformed into the luminous energy of the nebula, this agreement was
too good to be coincidence --- astronomers were certain that the
elusive neutron stars had been discovered! Anthony Hewish later shared
in the Nobel Prize for the discovery of pulsars.
[UNQUOTE]

Is that an incomplete sentence, or what?
I have always wondered how the rotational energy
was transferred to luminous energy or emitted energy or
gravitational radiation, in the quote above what are the
missing words, could they be "is not known"?
This is not a criticism, it is a sincere question.

Waste of time giving you sincere answers, Fischer, you are a no-nothing
idiot.

But after saying that, I have to say I don't like
the rotation pulse premise, a real pulsation would seem
to fit the double pulse period better, a bright pulse and
a less bright pulse.

I just got an idea.

No you didn't. Phuckwits have wild imaginations.


If the bright pulse in visible light coincides with a
bright x-ray or gamma pulse, then maybe the pulse is
due to rotation and magnetic fields.
If the _less_ bright pulse in visible light coincides
with the strong x-ray or gamma pulse, then maybe the
pulses are the result of a real pulsation (I will explain
this premise on request).


Do it in math, Fischer, or shut the **** up.
Oh, I forgot... you can't do either. Maybe. Assume. Idea. My theory.

IDIOT.

Androcles.

In message . com,
Androcles writes

nothing

How many aliases does this guy have?

In sci.physics.relativity, Jonathan Silverlight

wrote
on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:59:02 +0000
:
In message . com,
Androcles writes

nothing

How many aliases does this guy have?

Enough to annoy the more reputable members, perhaps. :-) Of
course Androclean "physics" is an interesting variant; it
claims, for instance:

- superluminal spaceborne muons
- Algol is *not* an eclipsing binary, but an ordinary star
with a planet around it; the brightness artifacts are
caused by c'=c+v and/or Sekerin effects
- Einstein was a huckster and suckered the entire physics community
with theories such as constant lightspeed, shrinking rods,
and imperfectly performing timeclocks ... or that there is a
Physics Cabal of some sort suckering the public or perhaps
the government suckering everybody with these theories. (I
don't know which and am not sure I care all that much.)
- that H. Wilson is an idiot
- that AQL1493's lightcurve somehow disproves SR -- AQL1493 is an
interesting star that shows a dip, then a resurgence, in its
brightness
- that the theories of Sekerin are a sufficient explanation for
many phenomena in the Universe
- that SR can be disproved by what is best described as some very
creative applications of math, and even more creative applications
of Pound-Rebka (or Pound-Rebka-Snyder) and Sagnac

and of course

- that anyone who thinks that SR is valid is, quote, "a phuckwit",
unquote. (This includes me, Dirk van de Moortel, Eric Gisse,
and a few others.)

Draw your own conclusions, bearing in mind this is my opinion
of his postings. But his postings are easily enough called up
in such locales as Google.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
In message . com,
Androcles writes

nothing

How many aliases does this guy have?

As many as I ****ing choose, troll.
Do you have any physics to discuss, ****?
NO, ****?
**** off then, **** another alias for YOU.
*plonk*
Androcles.

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 06:00:02 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Jonathan Silverlight

wrote
on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:59:02 +0000
:
In message . com,
Androcles writes

nothing

How many aliases does this guy have?

Enough to annoy the more reputable members, perhaps. :-) Of
course Androclean "physics" is an interesting variant; it
claims, for instance:

- superluminal spaceborne muons
- Algol is *not* an eclipsing binary, but an ordinary star
with a planet around it; the brightness artifacts are
caused by c'=c+v and/or Sekerin effects
- Einstein was a huckster and suckered the entire physics community
with theories such as constant lightspeed, shrinking rods,
and imperfectly performing timeclocks ... or that there is a
Physics Cabal of some sort suckering the public or perhaps
the government suckering everybody with these theories. (I
don't know which and am not sure I care all that much.)
- that H. Wilson is an idiot
- that AQL1493's lightcurve somehow disproves SR -- AQL1493 is an
interesting star that shows a dip, then a resurgence, in its
brightness
- that the theories of Sekerin are a sufficient explanation for
many phenomena in the Universe
- that SR can be disproved by what is best described as some very
creative applications of math, and even more creative applications
of Pound-Rebka (or Pound-Rebka-Snyder) and Sagnac

and of course

- that anyone who thinks that SR is valid is, quote, "a phuckwit",
unquote. (This includes me, Dirk van de Moortel, Eric Gisse,
and a few others.)

Draw your own conclusions, bearing in mind this is my opinion
of his postings. But his postings are easily enough called up
in such locales as Google.

But Ghost, you have to admit he is quite enrtertaining after the second bottle.


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

[snip]

and of course

- that anyone who thinks that SR is valid is, quote, "a phuckwit",
unquote. (This includes me, Dirk van de Moortel, Eric Gisse,
and a few others.)

Androcles would be a lot more fun if he would respond after I call
*him* a ****wit. Why should he get all the fun? Calling people stupid
can be greatly amusing though, especially when Androcles is wrong and
everyone but himself knows it! I wonder if he thinks that he isn't
being crude by saying "phuckwit" instead of saying "****wit". Perhaps
its an old

I miss the good ol' days when Androcles would say something blindly
stupid, then I would call him on it, then he would go into a frothing
rage over something disgurstinly trivial.

I can do that to George [Hammond] or Ken Seto, but where is the
challenge? You are guranteed bile even if you are actually asking a
serious question!

Oh well, there is always Henri Wilson. I find the best rise out of him
comes from when you rub his face in actual physics...Oh Henri why did
you have to lie to me about your Applied Mathematics degree? I was so
hoping for a detailed discussion about how the speed of light appears
in Maxwell's equations and what it truly means, along with how his
theory has no place in that picture. But alas, I get "nuh-UH".

[sig snip]

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 06:00:02 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Jonathan Silverlight

wrote
on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:59:02 +0000
:
In message . com,
Androcles writes

nothing

How many aliases does this guy have?

Enough to annoy the more reputable members, perhaps. :-) Of
course Androclean "physics" is an interesting variant; it
claims, for instance:

- superluminal spaceborne muons

Correct. 1 pt.

- Algol is *not* an eclipsing binary, but an ordinary star
with a planet around it; the brightness artifacts are
caused by c'=c+v and/or Sekerin effects

Correct. 2 pts.

- Einstein was a huckster and suckered the entire physics community
with theories such as constant lightspeed, shrinking rods,
and imperfectly performing timeclocks ...

Correct. 3 pts.


or that there is a
Physics Cabal of some sort suckering the public or perhaps
the government suckering everybody with these theories.

Incorrect. 3/4 pts


(I
don't know which and am not sure I care all that much.)

We know you don't know and don't care that you don't know.




- that H. Wilson is an idiot

H. Wilson is a halfwit, far higher than a dimwit, a nitwit or a phuckwit.
4/5 pts.


- that AQL1493's lightcurve somehow disproves SR -- AQL1493 is an
interesting star that shows a dip, then a resurgence, in its
brightness

Correct. 5/6 pts

- that the theories of Sekerin are a sufficient explanation for
many phenomena in the Universe

Incorrect. 5/7 pts.


- that SR can be disproved by what is best described as some very
creative applications of math,

Correct, but then SR was very creative math anyway. 6/8 pts.

and even more creative applications
of Pound-Rebka (or Pound-Rebka-Snyder) and Sagnac

Oh yes. Henri Wilson has built the first crude model of a light
accelerator. He'll become a fullwit if he ever completes it. 7/9 pts.



and of course

- that anyone who thinks that SR is valid is, quote, "a phuckwit",
unquote. (This includes me, Dirk van de Moortel, Eric Gisse,
and a few others.)

Correct. 8/10 pts.



Draw your own conclusions, bearing in mind this is my opinion
of his postings. But his postings are easily enough called up
in such locales as Google.
Correct. 9/11 pts.

Not bad.
You've reached the lofty rank of dimwit once more, 2 grades higher
than phuckwit.


But Ghost, you have to admit he is quite enrtertaining after the second
bottle.

You haven't even sent the first yet.
I sing for my supper and get no supper.
Androcles.

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:46:29 GMT
:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 06:00:02 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Jonathan Silverlight
d
wrote
on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:59:02 +0000
:
In message . com,
Androcles writes

nothing

How many aliases does this guy have?

Enough to annoy the more reputable members, perhaps. :-) Of
course Androclean "physics" is an interesting variant; it
claims, for instance:

- superluminal spaceborne muons

Correct. 1 pt.

- Algol is *not* an eclipsing binary, but an ordinary star
with a planet around it; the brightness artifacts are
caused by c'=c+v and/or Sekerin effects

Correct. 2 pts.

- Einstein was a huckster and suckered the entire physics community
with theories such as constant lightspeed, shrinking rods,
and imperfectly performing timeclocks ...

Correct. 3 pts.


or that there is a
Physics Cabal of some sort suckering the public or perhaps
the government suckering everybody with these theories.

Incorrect. 3/4 pts


(I
don't know which and am not sure I care all that much.)

We know you don't know and don't care that you don't know.

*shrug*





- that H. Wilson is an idiot

H. Wilson is a halfwit, far higher than a dimwit, a nitwit or a phuckwit.
4/5 pts.


- that AQL1493's lightcurve somehow disproves SR -- AQL1493 is an
interesting star that shows a dip, then a resurgence, in its
brightness

Correct. 5/6 pts

- that the theories of Sekerin are a sufficient explanation for
many phenomena in the Universe

Incorrect. 5/7 pts.

So what theories *are* sufficient? Or would that be putting you
on the spot?



- that SR can be disproved by what is best described as some very
creative applications of math,

Correct, but then SR was very creative math anyway. 6/8 pts.

and even more creative applications
of Pound-Rebka (or Pound-Rebka-Snyder) and Sagnac

Oh yes. Henri Wilson has built the first crude model of a light
accelerator. He'll become a fullwit if he ever completes it. 7/9 pts.


"Light accelerator"?

Most of us use lightbulbs to accelerate light from electric current,
and most of us have crude particle accelerators anyway, at least
in older model monitors.



and of course

- that anyone who thinks that SR is valid is, quote, "a phuckwit",
unquote. (This includes me, Dirk van de Moortel, Eric Gisse,
and a few others.)

Correct. 8/10 pts.



Draw your own conclusions, bearing in mind this is my opinion
of his postings. But his postings are easily enough called up
in such locales as Google.
Correct. 9/11 pts.

Not bad.
You've reached the lofty rank of dimwit once more, 2 grades higher
than phuckwit.

Oh, thank you! I've lived for this moment! I've...wait, does this
come with money attached? :-P


But Ghost, you have to admit he is quite enrtertaining after the second
bottle.

You haven't even sent the first yet.
I sing for my supper and get no supper.
Androcles.


If you want to sing for your supper, try an eatery. They at
least serve food.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In message , The Ghost In The
Machine writes
In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles


You haven't even sent the first yet.
I sing for my supper and get no supper.
Androcles.


If you want to sing for your supper, try an eatery. They at
least serve food.


But would you want him accompanying you meal? Would you trust dishes
he'd washed?
More seriously, is his use of fake addresses a violation of Blueyonder's
TOS? In which case a complaint might put him out of our misery.