What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 01:06:46 +1100, Byron Forbes
wrote:

In article , says...

tion?

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?

tHE ONLY REASON i BOTHER TO READ DIAPER'S CRAP IS THAT IT SERVES TO REMIND
ME THAT ALL EINSTEIN WORSHIPERS ARE COMPLETE MORONS.

HAHAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA!

On Oct 12, 2:35*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 01:06:46 +1100, Byron Forbes
wrote:











In article , says...

tion?

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?

tHE ONLY REASON i BOTHER TO READ DIAPER'S CRAP IS THAT IT SERVES TO REMIND
ME THAT ALL EINSTEIN WORSHIPERS ARE COMPLETE MORONS.

HAHAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA!

But Jews really do not have anyone else to worship, at least not in
physics. It seems they've put all of their kosher eggs in one basket.

On Oct 12, 4:33*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:02:14 -0500, PD wrote:

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!

On the other hand, Henry, -YOU- are still totally lost.

For sound, movement of the siren versus movement of the listener
are not equivalent scenarios.

For light, movement of the source versus movement of the detector
are equivalent scenarios. Both frequency and wavelength changes
have been measured in both scenarios. This is quite different
from the BaTh prediction.

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 4:33 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:02:14 -0500, PD wrote:

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!

On the other hand, Henry, -YOU- are still totally lost.

For sound, movement of the siren versus movement of the listener
are not equivalent scenarios.

For light, movement of the source versus movement of the detector
are equivalent scenarios. Both frequency and wavelength changes
have been measured in both scenarios. This is quite different
from the BaTh prediction.

Jerry
=============================================
Jeery has finally got it. Now all the faggot need do is put that in equation
form.
For sound, air is the frame of reference.

f' = f * (c+v)/(c+u)
For light, only the source and detector can be the frames of reference.
f' = f * (c+v)/c.

This is exactly the emission theory prediction. It is not the relativistic
prophecy which demands f' goes to infinity to produce a lumic boom
as u goes to c.

"It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a source of
light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear of infinite
intensity." - Albert ****wit Einstein.

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

Sneers and jeers, Androcles.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:33:37 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:

On Oct 12, 4:33*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:02:14 -0500, PD wrote:

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!

On the other hand, Henry, -YOU- are still totally lost.

For sound, movement of the siren versus movement of the listener
are not equivalent scenarios.

Explain that to your fellow dingleberry diaper.

For light, movement of the source versus movement of the detector
are equivalent scenarios. Both frequency and wavelength changes
have been measured in both scenarios.

Oh, really? What is this supposed 'frequency' to which you refer?

This is quite differen from the BaTh prediction.

Jerry

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:22:56 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:35*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 01:06:46 +1100, Byron Forbes
wrote:

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?

tHE ONLY REASON i BOTHER TO READ DIAPER'S CRAP IS THAT IT SERVES TO REMIND
ME THAT ALL EINSTEIN WORSHIPERS ARE COMPLETE MORONS.

HAHAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHA!

But Jews really do not have anyone else to worship, at least not in
physics.

You mustn't be anti-semetic...I'm sure Iranian and Paki nuclear bomb makers
worship Einstein too.

It seems they've put all of their kosher eggs in one basket.

.......and please don't mention the gas chambers...

On Oct 12, 5:51*pm, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:

For sound, air is the frame of reference.

f' = f * (c+v)/(c+u)
For light, only the source and detector can be the frames of reference.
f' = f * (c+v)/c.

This is exactly the emission theory prediction.

-WHICH- emission theory? I know of at least six emission
theories. Tolman discussed three variants of emission theory back
in 1912, all of which were thoroughly discredited within a few
years of his publication. It was in fact Miller who disproved the
Ritz variant of emission theory, by performing MMX with sunlight
as the light source.
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/6213/1/TOLpr12.pdf

Jerry

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:

On Oct 12, 5:51*pm, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:

For sound, air is the frame of reference.

f' = f * (c+v)/(c+u)
For light, only the source and detector can be the frames of reference.
f' = f * (c+v)/c.

This is exactly the emission theory prediction.

-WHICH- emission theory? I know of at least six emission
theories. Tolman discussed three variants of emission theory back
in 1912, all of which were thoroughly discredited within a few
years of his publication. It was in fact Miller who disproved the
Ritz variant of emission theory, by performing MMX with sunlight
as the light source.
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/6213/1/TOLpr12.pdf

Don't try to be funny Crank. There is only one basic emission theory but
mine version is the only one up to date.

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 5:51 pm, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:

Sneery Jeery wrote and then snipped:

On the other hand, Henry, -YOU- are still totally lost.

For sound, movement of the siren versus movement of the listener
are not equivalent scenarios.

For light, movement of the source versus movement of the detector
are equivalent scenarios. Both frequency and wavelength changes
have been measured in both scenarios. This is quite different
from the BaTh prediction.

Jerry
=============================================
Androcles wrote:
Jeery has finally got it. Now all the faggot need do is put that in equation
form.
For sound, air is the frame of reference.

f' = f * (c+v)/(c+u)
For light, only the source and detector can be the frames of reference.
f' = f * (c+v)/c.

This is exactly the emission theory prediction. It is not the relativistic
prophecy which demands f' goes to infinity to produce a lumic boom
as u goes to c.

"It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a source of
light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear of infinite
intensity." - Albert ****wit Einstein.

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

Sneers and jeers, Androcles.

-WHICH- emission theory?
=======================
Newton's and Doppler's and Michelson's corpuscular light emission theory
referred to by Michelson in the first line of his paper, ya stupid old
faggot.
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf

I don't ask you which relativity theory, ya ****ing imbecile.

HOORAY! YOU FINALLY GOT THE MESSAGE JEERY! YOU HAVE AGREED
WITH ME EVEN THOUGH CRACKPOT WILSON AND HIS BATH DOESN'T!

Sneers and jeers, Androcles.

On Oct 12, 9:00*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:
On Oct 12, 5:51 pm, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:

For sound, air is the frame of reference.

f' = f * (c+v)/(c+u)
For light, only the source and detector can be the frames of reference..
f' = f * (c+v)/c.

This is exactly the emission theory prediction.

-WHICH- emission theory? I know of at least six emission
theories. Tolman discussed three variants of emission theory back
in 1912, all of which were thoroughly discredited within a few
years of his publication. It was in fact Miller who disproved the
Ritz variant of emission theory, by performing MMX with sunlight
as the light source.
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/6213/1/TOLpr12.pdf

Don't try to be funny Crank. There is only one basic emission theory but
mine version is the only one up to date.

Oh, come on, don't be stupid. You have NEVER decided whether
c+v light bounces off a mirror with speed c+v, or is re-radiated
with speed c. That makes TWO distinct theories with distinctly
different behaviors in such experiments as, for instance, Sagnac
using mirrors versus fiber-optic.

Likewise you have NEVER decided whether c+v light passing through
a transparent medium travels at speed (c+v)/n or c/n.

Two times two equals four variations of BaTh.

Likewise you have NEVER decided whether c+v light entering, then
emerging from a transparent medium travels at c+v or c.

Two times two times two equals eight variations of BaTh.

Likewise you have NEVER decided whether 2c light of wavelength
800 nm has the same or a different color than 1c light of
wavelength 400 nm.

Two times two times two times two equals sixteen variations of
BaTh.

Are you getting the picture?

Jerry