What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

In article , says...

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.

Says the SR fanboy.


The wavelength from redshifted objects has been measured with
instruments SOLELY sensitive to wavelength.
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.


WOW - a reiteration of SR doctrine. Never saw that one coming!

Everything you just claimed assumes SR - pathetic.

If light speeds up then any detector will see shorter wavelength and higher frequency - how could it not?



Simple.

This is in agreement with these -

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Cahill2006.pdf

"We now have eight experiments that independently and consistently
demonstrated (i) the anisotropy of the speed of
light, and where the anisotropy is quite large, namely 300,000
±420 km/s, depending on the direction of measurement relative
to the Milky Way, (ii) that the direction, given by the
Right Ascension and Declination, is now known, being established
by the Miller, De Witte and Flinders experiments!"

"The Miller experiment was one of the most significant
experiments of the 20th century. It meant that a substructure
to reality deeper than spacetime had been revealed, that
spacetime was merely a mathematical construct and not an
aspect of reality. It meant that the Einstein postulate regarding
the invariance of the speed of light was incorrect ? in
disagreement with experiment, and had been so from the
beginning."


plus

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Munera2006.pdf
http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/...Bejing2009.pdf

On 10/11/2011 5:49 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:50:12 -0500, 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.

They certainly change the relative velocity between the telescope and
the source, and that certainly and measurably changes the wavelength.

You'll note that just by changing your movement in your car, the
frequency from a siren fixed to the ground also changes.

Raving? What's raving about what's measured, Ralph? Just because it
blows your wee little mind doesn't mean a thing.

In article , says...

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.


Just laughable. Like one is not dictated by the other.

Hey PD, why don't you just assume SR ALL THE TIME!




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.

In article , says...

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?


The only thing that SR ever predicts is that SR is correct.

So do you have an explanation or just bucket loads of drivel?



End of story.

It's a very short and unsubstantiated story.

In article , says...

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.

My serve -

No they aren't.


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."

In article , says...

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


hehehehe

You really are Dick Van Dyke aren't you?

On 10/12/2011 9:04 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

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.


Just laughable. Like one is not dictated by the other.

That's right. One is not dictated by the other.
Note the statement that the same grating is *experimentally confirmed*
to diffract by the same amount two signals with the same wavelength and
completely different signal speeds. And that has NOTHING to do with
relativity.

Oh, that's right, experimental confirmation of things you don't want to
believe is also laughable. You and Ralph both.




Hey PD, why don't you just assume SR ALL THE TIME!

On 10/12/2011 9:10 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

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.

My serve -

No they aren't.

Demonstrate how, exactly.
That is, prove that the principle of relativity demands something that
is inconsistent with CMBR anisotropy and/or prove that the cosmological
principle demands something that is inconsistent with CMBR anisotropy.

Not what your comic-book-level understanding of the principle of
relativity or the cosmological principle says. What they ACTUALLY say.
Preferably backed up by reference material.



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."

On 10/12/2011 9:06 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

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?


The only thing that SR ever predicts is that SR is correct.

It makes certain predictions about what will be measured.
It obviously doesn't predict things you think it predicts.
This should not be surprising, since you don't know the first thing
about relativity, and so you just shoot from the hip on what it might
and might not predict.

So much easier to do that then to actually work to understand what
relativity does and does not predict.


So do you have an explanation or just bucket loads of drivel?



End of story.

It's a very short and unsubstantiated story.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:02:14 -0500, PD wrote:

On 10/11/2011 5:49 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:50:12 -0500, wrote:


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.

They certainly change the relative velocity between the telescope and
the source, and that certainly and measurably changes the wavelength.

Diaper you are such an incuarble moron.

The change in velocity changes the in 'wavecrest' arrival frequency, as
shown in my illustration. the wavelength is intrinsic and cannot be affected
by the movement of an observer or his grating.


You'll note that just by changing your movement in your car, the
frequency from a siren fixed to the ground also changes.

HOORAY! YOU FINALLY GOT THE MESSAGE DIAPER! YOU HAVE AGREED WITH ME!

Raving? What's raving about what's measured, Henry? Just because it
blows your wee little mind doesn't mean a thing.