|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
"Jerry" wrote in message ... 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 ================================== He'll only "get it" if he learns from it. Same with you. There is only one basic emission theory and it isn't Wilson's uni****ation or lucky white haether or gravity bent light or any other crap where the difference is only found in the measurement tolerances. "Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes." -- Sir Isaac Newton, Principia. |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Oct 12, 10:55*pm, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote: He'll only "get it" if he learns from it. Same with you. There is only one basic emission theory Wrong. Each unanswered question represents a bifurcation of your vaguely defined "emission theory" into two sub-theories. Why don't -you- answer these two questions? 1) Is the color of 2c 800nm light the same or different from the color of 1c 400nm light? 2) Does c+v light reflect off a mirror at c+v or c? and it isn't Wilson's uni****ation or lucky white haether or gravity bent light or any other crap where the difference is only found in the measurement tolerances. "Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes." -- Sir Isaac Newton, Principia. |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
"Jerry" wrote in message ... On Oct 12, 10:55 pm, "Androcles" . 2011 wrote: He'll only "get it" if he learns from it. Same with you. There is only one basic emission theory Wrong. =============================== Yes, you are, you snipping knee-jerking ****wit. 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. |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:02:07 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote: "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. What exactly is 'f'? 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. |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:24:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote: On Oct 12, 9:00*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Jerry wrote: -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. It doesn't affect the theory one way or the other. The answer is unknown at this stage for the simple reason that there is no known way to find the answer experimentally. That makes TWO distinct theories with distinctly different behaviors in such experiments as, for instance, Sagnac using mirrors versus fiber-optic. You know nothing about sagnac. Likewise you have NEVER decided whether c+v light passing through a transparent medium travels at speed (c+v)/n or c/n. Correct...theere is not enough data....because phyiscs has been hijacked by the idiot Einstein and followers. 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. Correct...theere is not enough data....because phyiscs has been hijacked by the idiot Einstein and followers. Two times two times two times two equals sixteen variations of BaTh. Are you getting the picture? I had the picture many years ago....YOU are a desperate moron. Jerry |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message ... | On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:02:07 +0100, "Androcles" | wrote: | | | "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. | | What exactly is 'f'? Frequency, boy. f' is the observed frequency, f is the emitted frequency. It's the pitch of the note you hear, Doppler used trained musicians with perfect pitch hearing, got them to ride a train while blowing a trumpet. Listen carefully: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut27rSwkV2k 400 Hz emitted, speed of train mach 0.1 (70 mph). f' = 400 * (1+0)/(0.9) = 444 Hz approaching. f' = 400 *(1+0)/ 1.1 = 364 Hz receeding. That's 80 Hz difference, very noticable, its the difference between F# and the A above it in the middle of a piano keyboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_pitch_notation If you are riding the train, f' = 400 * (1+0.1)/(1+0.1) = 400 Hz, no shift is heard. The human ear is a reliable and accurate frequency detector when a musician owns it. Ask your local piano tuner. When u = -c you get a sonic boom which was the excuse for not permitting Concorde to fly across the USA. That can't happen with light, there is no medium and hence no u. 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. | | | | |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message ... | On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:24:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry | wrote: | | On Oct 12, 9:00 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote: | On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Jerry | wrote: | | | -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. | | It doesn't affect the theory one way or the other. The answer is unknown at | this stage for the simple reason that there is no known way to find the | answer experimentally. Nonsense, that's simply radar. Use Greenfield's notation, c' = c+v. If the light hits the mirror at c' then it reflects from the mirror at -c'. |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Oct 13, 2:19*am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:24:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry wrote: On Oct 12, 9:00*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Jerry wrote: -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. It doesn't affect the theory one way or the other. The answer is unknown at this stage for the simple reason that there is no known way to find the answer experimentally. Oh come on! Simple as looking at a photo of the Hubble Deep Field! That makes TWO distinct theories with distinctly different behaviors in such experiments as, for instance, Sagnac using mirrors versus fiber-optic. You know nothing about sagnac. Likewise you have NEVER decided whether c+v light passing through a transparent medium travels at speed (c+v)/n or c/n. Correct...theere is not enough data....because phyiscs has been hijacked by the idiot Einstein and followers. Unfortunately for your argument, there IS enough data. 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. Correct...theere is not enough data....because phyiscs has been hijacked by the idiot Einstein and followers. Two times two times two times two equals sixteen variations of BaTh. Are you getting the picture? I had the picture many years ago....YOU are a desperate moron. You don't even know the basics of your own theory. Jerry |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:58:43 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote: On Oct 13, 2:19*am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:24:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry wrote: 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. It doesn't affect the theory one way or the other. The answer is unknown at this stage for the simple reason that there is no known way to find the answer experimentally. Oh come on! Simple as looking at a photo of the Hubble Deep Field! Please explain in detail. |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:21:49 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote: "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message .. . | On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:24:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry | wrote: | It doesn't affect the theory one way or the other. The answer is unknown at | this stage for the simple reason that there is no known way to find the | answer experimentally. Nonsense, that's simply radar. Use Greenfield's notation, c' = c+v. If the light hits the mirror at c' then it reflects from the mirror at -c'. Do the sums and you will see that the difference between c and c+v is usually far too small to affect radar significantly. But I agree, Greenfield is probably right...and in agreement with what I have proposed in the past. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What the Scientific Establishment DOESN'T want you to knowof theSCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 2nd 08 01:54 PM |
Vested-Interest Secrets of the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT (The Truth ItDoesn't Want You to Know) | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 2nd 08 01:47 PM |
Corrupt Scientific Establishment Still Blackballing Ed Conrad's Incredible Discoveries -- Evolution vs. Intelligent Design | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 21st 06 11:42 AM |
ED CONRAD the PO8 -- Ode to the Scientific Establishment - | John Zinni | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 27th 06 08:41 PM |
ED CONRAD the PO8 -- Ode to the Scientific Establishment.. | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 1 | March 30th 06 06:31 AM |