What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On 10/11/2011 7:08 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On 10/4/2011 5:07 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:


Why on earth do you think SR predicts the temperature would be the
same in all directions???


So what are we violating here, Cosmological principle or invariant lightspeed?

Neither one. Why would you think SR predicts the temperature would be
the same in all directions?


If SR and/or CP are not violated then what's the explanation?

Explanation for WHAT? You still haven't said what you think SR predicts
(and why) or what the CP says should be the case (and why). First find
out what those two things SAY, and then you can worry about whether CMBR
is a violation of that. I'm really not too concerned about your vague
notions that maybe somehow perhaps CMBR violates something you think
maybe SR or CP might possibly be saying or something like that. Don't
GUESS. It's unbecoming.


SR predicts same freq spread in all directions.

No, it doesn't. Why do you think it does?


End of story.

It's a very short and unsubstantiated story.

PD wrote in message

On 10/11/2011 6:56 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/4/2011 5:01 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/4/2011 3:10 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In
,
says...

On Sep 30, 11:47 pm, Byron
wrote:
In ,
says...

Why do you think CMBR dipole anistropy kills SR?
What do you think SR says should be the case?

SR would predict the "temperature" to be
the same in all directions.

False.

Jerry


So you concede that c varies?

No. One does not imply the other. If you think otherwise,
surely you can derive that.


So we flush the Cosmological Principle instead?

Or you phrase it carefully, as it really is phrased, not some
oversimplified *******ization of it.


Take your pick - it has to be one or the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy

Then surely you can follow the links in that article around to
find out why this doesn't blow the hell out of the cosmological
principle.


Agreed. And thus relativity is flushed.

How so? CMBR is completely consistent with both.
You first claimed that CMBR is inconsistent with the principle of
relativity by claiming that the principle of relativity would imply
isotropy of temperature -- which is false.
Then you claimed that, since it is not inconsistent with the
principle of relativity, it must therefore be inconsistent with the
cosmological principle.
When it was pointed out to you (with a reference) that this is not
the case, you then circled back to again claim that it is
inconsistent with the principle of relativity.

See the problem?

"This is inconsistent with A."
"No, it's not."
"Then I conclude that it must be inconsistent with B."
"But it's not."
"Then I conclude that it must be inconsistent with A."

Tragedy ;-)
Didn't you point Androfart to a mad dog video a few days ago?
That was fun.
Perhaps you can show it to Byron now...

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote in message

PD wrote in message

On 10/11/2011 6:56 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:

[snot]

Agreed. And thus relativity is flushed.

How so? CMBR is completely consistent with both.
You first claimed that CMBR is inconsistent with the principle of
relativity by claiming that the principle of relativity would
imply isotropy of temperature -- which is false.
Then you claimed that, since it is not inconsistent with the
principle of relativity, it must therefore be inconsistent with
the cosmological principle.
When it was pointed out to you (with a reference) that this is not
the case, you then circled back to again claim that it is
inconsistent with the principle of relativity.

See the problem?

"This is inconsistent with A."
"No, it's not."
"Then I conclude that it must be inconsistent with B."
"But it's not."
"Then I conclude that it must be inconsistent with A."

Tragedy ;-)
Didn't you point Androfart to a mad dog video a few days ago?
That was fun.
Perhaps you can show it to Byron now...

Dirk Vdm

Got it!
Byron's MO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB9BaOcxntk
Heh.

Dirk Vdm

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:05:06 -0500, PD wrote:

On 10/11/2011 7:03 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On 10/4/2011 5:07 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:


Why on earth do you think SR predicts the temperature would be the
same in all directions???


So what are we violating here, Cosmological principle or invariant lightspeed?

Neither one. Why would you think SR predicts the temperature would be
the same in all directions?


If SR and/or CP are not violated then what's the explanation?

Explanation for WHAT? You still haven't said what you think SR predicts
(and why) or what the CP says should be the case (and why). First find
out what those two things SAY, and then you can worry about whether CMBR
is a violation of that. I'm really not too concerned about your vague
notions that maybe somehow perhaps CMBR violates something you think
maybe SR or CP might possibly be saying or something like that. Don't
GUESS. It's unbecoming.


This is simple.

The CMB is redshifted in a specific direction.

Yes.


This means that light from that direction is faster and the aether is blowing that way.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

Redshift doesn't have anything to do with the speed of light.
The wavelength from redshifted objects has been measured with
instruments SOLELY sensitive to wavelength.

HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHA!

What is the wavelength of a photon, diaper?

The frequency from redshifted objects has been measured with instruments
SOLELY sensitive to frequency.
The product of those two measured quantities is c, regardless of the
redshift of the object.

Wavelength is measured with gratings...which are sensitive to ligth speed as
well as absolute photon wavelength.

see: www.scisite.info/bathgrating.jpg

On second thoughts, don't bother. It is far too ard for you.

On 10/11/2011 3:54 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:05:06 -0500, wrote:

On 10/11/2011 7:03 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On 10/4/2011 5:07 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:


Why on earth do you think SR predicts the temperature would be the
same in all directions???


So what are we violating here, Cosmological principle or invariant lightspeed?

Neither one. Why would you think SR predicts the temperature would be
the same in all directions?


If SR and/or CP are not violated then what's the explanation?

Explanation for WHAT? You still haven't said what you think SR predicts
(and why) or what the CP says should be the case (and why). First find
out what those two things SAY, and then you can worry about whether CMBR
is a violation of that. I'm really not too concerned about your vague
notions that maybe somehow perhaps CMBR violates something you think
maybe SR or CP might possibly be saying or something like that. Don't
GUESS. It's unbecoming.


This is simple.

The CMB is redshifted in a specific direction.

Yes.


This means that light from that direction is faster and the aether is blowing that way.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

Redshift doesn't have anything to do with the speed of light.
The wavelength from redshifted objects has been measured with
instruments SOLELY sensitive to wavelength.

HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHA!

What is the wavelength of a photon, diaper?

The frequency from redshifted objects has been measured with instruments
SOLELY sensitive to frequency.
The product of those two measured quantities is c, regardless of the
redshift of the object.

Wavelength is measured with gratings...which are sensitive to ligth speed as
well as absolute photon wavelength.

They are sensitive to wavelength and not to speed, despite your foolish
sketch.

The same grating diffracts by the same amount two signals with the same
wavelength and completely different speeds.


see: www.scisite.info/bathgrating.jpg

On second thoughts, don't bother. It is far too ard for you.

Not "ard". Just too wrong for me.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:58:37 -0500, PD wrote:

On 10/11/2011 3:54 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:05:06 -0500, wrote:

On 10/11/2011 7:03 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...



This means that light from that direction is faster and the aether is blowing that way.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

Redshift doesn't have anything to do with the speed of light.
The wavelength from redshifted objects has been measured with
instruments SOLELY sensitive to wavelength.

HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHA!

What is the wavelength of a photon, diaper?

The frequency from redshifted objects has been measured with instruments
SOLELY sensitive to frequency.
The product of those two measured quantities is c, regardless of the
redshift of the object.

Wavelength is measured with gratings...which are sensitive to ligth speed as
well as absolute photon wavelength.

They are sensitive to wavelength and not to speed, despite your foolish
sketch.

To be called 'foolish' by a fool is indeed a compliment.

The same grating diffracts by the same amount two signals with the same
wavelength and completely different speeds.

That's strangs, the gratings in the HST are sensitive to the craft's varying
velocity.

see: www.scisite.info/bathgrating.jpg

On second thoughts, don't bother. It is far too ard for you.

Not "ard". Just too wrong for me.

On 10/11/2011 4:40 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:58:37 -0500, wrote:

On 10/11/2011 3:54 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:05:06 -0500, wrote:

On 10/11/2011 7:03 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...



This means that light from that direction is faster and the aether is blowing that way.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

Redshift doesn't have anything to do with the speed of light.
The wavelength from redshifted objects has been measured with
instruments SOLELY sensitive to wavelength.

HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHA!

What is the wavelength of a photon, diaper?

The frequency from redshifted objects has been measured with instruments
SOLELY sensitive to frequency.
The product of those two measured quantities is c, regardless of the
redshift of the object.

Wavelength is measured with gratings...which are sensitive to ligth speed as
well as absolute photon wavelength.

They are sensitive to wavelength and not to speed, despite your foolish
sketch.

To be called 'foolish' by a fool is indeed a compliment.

Just keep telling yourself that everyone that tells you that you're a
fool are themselves fools. That way, you can compliment yourself from
sunrise to sunset and go to sleep a self-congratulated man.


The same grating diffracts by the same amount two signals with the same
wavelength and completely different speeds.

That's strangs, the gratings in the HST are sensitive to the craft's varying
velocity.

Strange though it may seem to you, it's true that gratings are sensitive
to wavelength and not to speed of incoming signal.


see: www.scisite.info/bathgrating.jpg

On second thoughts, don't bother. It is far too ard for you.

Not "ard". Just too wrong for me.

PD wrote in message

On 10/11/2011 4:40 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:58:37 -0500,
wrote:

On 10/11/2011 3:54 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:05:06 -0500,
wrote:

On 10/11/2011 7:03 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In ,
says...

This means that light from that direction is faster and
the aether is blowing that way.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

Redshift doesn't have anything to do with the speed of
light.
The wavelength from redshifted objects has been measured
with instruments SOLELY sensitive to wavelength.

HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHA!

What is the wavelength of a photon, diaper?

The frequency from redshifted objects has been measured
with instruments SOLELY sensitive to frequency.
The product of those two measured quantities is c,
regardless of the redshift of the object.

Wavelength is measured with gratings...which are sensitive to
ligth speed as well as absolute photon wavelength.

They are sensitive to wavelength and not to speed, despite your
foolish sketch.

To be called 'foolish' by a fool is indeed a compliment.

Just keep telling yourself that everyone that tells you that you're
a fool are themselves fools. That way, you can compliment yourself
from sunrise to sunset and go to sleep a self-congratulated man.

And anything that he tells us that we are ourselves,
we will tell him that he is it himself himself!

Dirk Vdm

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:50:12 -0500, PD wrote:

On 10/11/2011 4:40 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:58:37 -0500, wrote:

On 10/11/2011 3:54 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:05:06 -0500, wrote:

On 10/11/2011 7:03 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...



This means that light from that direction is faster and the aether is blowing that way.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

Redshift doesn't have anything to do with the speed of light.
The wavelength from redshifted objects has been measured with
instruments SOLELY sensitive to wavelength.

HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHA!

What is the wavelength of a photon, diaper?

The frequency from redshifted objects has been measured with instruments
SOLELY sensitive to frequency.
The product of those two measured quantities is c, regardless of the
redshift of the object.

Wavelength is measured with gratings...which are sensitive to ligth speed as
well as absolute photon wavelength.

They are sensitive to wavelength and not to speed, despite your foolish
sketch.

To be called 'foolish' by a fool is indeed a compliment.

Just keep telling yourself that everyone that tells you that you're a
fool are themselves fools. That way, you can compliment yourself from
sunrise to sunset and go to sleep a self-congratulated man.


The same grating diffracts by the same amount two signals with the same
wavelength and completely different speeds.

That's strangs, the gratings in the HST are sensitive to the craft's varying
velocity.

Strange though it may seem to you, it's true that gratings are sensitive
to wavelength and not to speed of incoming signal.

You are raving...as usual. You are claiming that the changes in movement of
an orbiting telescope grating somehow affect the wavelength of light...since
they certainly detect those changes.

Originally Posted by Thomas Heger[_4_]

Am 03.09.2011 18:38, schrieb GSS:
Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
of years even in the modern age of instant communications? Why the
collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.

I personally believe, that theoretical physics as we know it is
intentionally wrong. Better models are known, but not for the common
mortals. To train the students total nonsense was developed, that is
inconceivable complicated, but has no value whatsoever.

These 'theories' also disrupt occasional dissident movements and deviate
them into wrong tracks.

How to overcome this???? Well first trying to see, that this is
intentional. Nature cannot function like some of our most prominent
models suggest. And it is absolutely unwanted by the 'high-priests',
that laymen develop a valid description. This would make them
immediately unnecessary and people would start to ask, how these
billions were actually spent and what all these 'scientists' actually do.

On Arxiv.org there are half a million papers. This is an unbelievable
large number and nobody can ever read them. So it is completely useless
to have such a system, but it does exist. But why?? I assume: to create
a flood of nonsense.

It has to be this way, because nature should behave somehow with simple
mechanisms, hence we would need only a few papers with valid
descriptions - and the rest is wrong (nonsense). So 99,9% is wrong and
everybody knows this, except the common mortals.

Occasional dissidents come with own ideas, but get no audience. Why?
Well, who wanted to listen? The mainstream 'high-priests' do not want
and do not need and their staff is carefully selected for 'flexibility'
(smart, corrupt, brainwashed). Those do not dare to listen and endlessly
reject every dissident word.

TH

Thanks you for the post.