What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:

"Timo Nieminen" wrote:
| On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:
|
| 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'.
|
| Ooh! Science from Androcles!

Yep, as always. Newton wrote three laws, conservation of momentum
was one of them.

| Not Ritz's emission theory then. Majorana's experiments (Phil mag 35, 163
| (1918), Phil Mag 37, 145 (1919)) support Ritz's emission theory over this
| reflect at speed of c' relative to the mirror emission theory.
|
| (Miller's Michelson-Morley with sunlight dis-supports both of
| those versions, in favour of c relative to the mirror, a "new source"
| emission theory.)
|
Ooh! Irrelevant drivel from Nieminen!

Experiments that falsify your preferred emission theory in favour of two
other emission theories are irrelevant? Androcles thinks experiment
evidence for and against theories is irrelevant? Ah well, that's the end
of science from Androcles!

(Btw, "conservation of momentum" is a good summary of all 3 of Newton's
laws of motion, not just one of them.)

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, it was written:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:06:30 +1000, Timo Nieminen
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:

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'.

Ooh! Science from Androcles!

Not Ritz's emission theory then. Majorana's experiments (Phil mag 35, 163
(1918), Phil Mag 37, 145 (1919)) support Ritz's emission theory over this
reflect at speed of c' relative to the mirror emission theory.

(Miller's Michelson-Morley with sunlight dis-supports both of
those versions, in favour of c relative to the mirror, a "new source"
emission theory.)

I don't see how that follows. Where is the moving mirror?
If there is a speed change of the source, it is the same in both arms.

More important is the fact that the beam passes through a glass plate, which
could easily cause the beams to emerge at god knows what speed.

"God know what speed" isn't very scientific. What are the options? What
are the observable consequences? Do some science!

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.1110141355540.2643-100000@localhost...
| On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:
|
| "Timo Nieminen" wrote:
| | On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:
| |
| | 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'.
| |
| | Ooh! Science from Androcles!
|
| Yep, as always. Newton wrote three laws, conservation of momentum
| was one of them.
|
| | Not Ritz's emission theory then. Majorana's experiments (Phil mag 35,
163
| | (1918), Phil Mag 37, 145 (1919)) support Ritz's emission theory over
this
| | reflect at speed of c' relative to the mirror emission theory.
| |
| | (Miller's Michelson-Morley with sunlight dis-supports both of
| | those versions, in favour of c relative to the mirror, a "new source"
| | emission theory.)
| |
| Ooh! Irrelevant drivel from Nieminen!
|
| Experiments that falsify your preferred emission theory in favour of two
| other emission theories are irrelevant?

Experiments that falsify your preferred relativity drool in favour of
Newton's,
Doppler's and Michelson's emission fact are definitely irrelevant!
Read the first line:
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
It says THE emission theory, not Majorana's emission theory or
Miller's emission theory or Nieminen's emission theory or even
Santa Claus's emission theory, so take your bogus straw men and
your irrelevant drivel and shove 'em you know where, Nieminen.

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Oct 13, 10:59 pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:

Experiments that falsify your preferred emission theory in favour of two
other emission theories are irrelevant? Androcles thinks experiment
evidence for and against theories is irrelevant? Ah well, that's the end
of science from Androcles!

If Androcles truly understood Ritz emission theory, I doubt that
he would support it. The reflection behavior is truly bizarre
compared to other emission theories.

Jerry
=========================================
If Sneery Jeery truly understood Bailey's relativity theory, I doubt that
he would support it. The time dilation behavior is truly bizarre
compared to other relativity theories.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...uons/Muons.htm

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Jerry wrote:

On Oct 13, 10:59*pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:

Experiments that falsify your preferred emission theory in favour of two
other emission theories are irrelevant? Androcles thinks experiment
evidence for and against theories is irrelevant? Ah well, that's the end
of science from Androcles!

If Androcles truly understood Ritz emission theory, I doubt that
he would support it. The reflection behavior is truly bizarre
compared to other emission theories.

He doesn't support it. What he says about the emission theory he supports
is contrary to Ritz theory. Whether Androcles knows that, I don't know.

Interesting to see that there are experiments that support Ritz theory at
the expense of the other major emission theories. (Not just the ones by
Majorana (and others), but some other kinds, too. Panofsky and Phillips
list Fizeau-type experiments among them.) Of course, there are experiments
that support other theories at the expense of Ritz. I can't think of one
off-hand that supports the reflect-at-incident-speed version (which
Androcles supports) over the other emission theories.

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.1110141515520.2643-100000@localhost...
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Jerry wrote:

On Oct 13, 10:59 pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:

Experiments that falsify your preferred emission theory in favour of two
other emission theories are irrelevant? Androcles thinks experiment
evidence for and against theories is irrelevant? Ah well, that's the end
of science from Androcles!

If Androcles truly understood Ritz emission theory, I doubt that
he would support it. The reflection behavior is truly bizarre
compared to other emission theories.

He doesn't support it. What he says about the emission theory he supports
is contrary to Ritz theory. Whether Androcles knows that, I don't know.
================================================== =

Nieminen doesn't support Bailey's relativity theory. What he says about
the relativity theory he supports is contrary to Einstein's theory. Whether
Nieminen knows that, I don't give a ****, it is irrelevant to bouncing light
off a mirror. That's the end of logical debate from Nieminen.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:

"Timo Nieminen" wrote:
| On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:
| "Timo Nieminen" wrote:
| | On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:
| |
| | 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'.
| |
| | Ooh! Science from Androcles!
|
| Yep, as always. Newton wrote three laws, conservation of momentum
| was one of them.
|
| | Not Ritz's emission theory then. Majorana's experiments (Phil mag 35,
163
| | (1918), Phil Mag 37, 145 (1919)) support Ritz's emission theory over
this
| | reflect at speed of c' relative to the mirror emission theory.
| |
| | (Miller's Michelson-Morley with sunlight dis-supports both of
| | those versions, in favour of c relative to the mirror, a "new source"
| | emission theory.)
| |
| Ooh! Irrelevant drivel from Nieminen!
|
| Experiments that falsify your preferred emission theory in favour of two
| other emission theories are irrelevant?

Experiments that falsify your preferred relativity drool in favour of
Newton's,
Doppler's and Michelson's emission fact are definitely irrelevant!
Read the first line:
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
It says THE emission theory, not Majorana's emission theory or
Miller's emission theory or Nieminen's emission theory or even
Santa Claus's emission theory, so take your bogus straw men and
your irrelevant drivel and shove 'em you know where, Nieminen.

Why not read the rest of the paragraph? How about "But it failed to
account for the fact proved by experiment that the aberration was
unchanged when observations were made with a telescope filled with water"?

Apart from that little problem, all of the major emission theories that
don't include "extinction" in the interstellar medium successfully account
for aberration. So does special relativity. So does the usual stationary
aether theory. It's only dragged aether theories that have trouble with
aberration. (Until water-filled telescopes are introduced.)

So, aberration is useless for deciding between the different emission
theories. So is the standard Michelson-Morley experiment. Why are you
afraid to look at the experiments that do distinguish between the
different emission theories?

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:02:43 +1000, Timo Nieminen
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, it was written:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:06:30 +1000, Timo Nieminen
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:

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'.

Ooh! Science from Androcles!

Not Ritz's emission theory then. Majorana's experiments (Phil mag 35, 163
(1918), Phil Mag 37, 145 (1919)) support Ritz's emission theory over this
reflect at speed of c' relative to the mirror emission theory.

(Miller's Michelson-Morley with sunlight dis-supports both of
those versions, in favour of c relative to the mirror, a "new source"
emission theory.)

I don't see how that follows. Where is the moving mirror?
If there is a speed change of the source, it is the same in both arms.

More important is the fact that the beam passes through a glass plate, which
could easily cause the beams to emerge at god knows what speed.

"God know what speed" isn't very scientific. What are the options? What
are the observable consequences? Do some science!

If you knew anything about science, I would bother to explain.

But to put it layman's language, there is no reason to believe that light,
which strikes the glass at c+v, exits at exactly the same speed.

There is no experimental evidence for this situation so don't try to make
out you know the answer.

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.1110141553060.2643-100000@localhost...
| On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:
|
| "Timo Nieminen" wrote:
| | On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:
| | "Timo Nieminen" wrote:
| | | On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:
| | |
| | | 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'.
| | |
| | | Ooh! Science from Androcles!
| |
| | Yep, as always. Newton wrote three laws, conservation of momentum
| | was one of them.
| |
| | | Not Ritz's emission theory then. Majorana's experiments (Phil mag
35,
| 163
| | | (1918), Phil Mag 37, 145 (1919)) support Ritz's emission theory
over
| this
| | | reflect at speed of c' relative to the mirror emission theory.
| | |
| | | (Miller's Michelson-Morley with sunlight dis-supports both of
| | | those versions, in favour of c relative to the mirror, a "new
source"
| | | emission theory.)
| | |
| | Ooh! Irrelevant drivel from Nieminen!
| |
| | Experiments that falsify your preferred emission theory in favour of
two
| | other emission theories are irrelevant?
|
| Experiments that falsify your preferred relativity drool in favour of
| Newton's,
| Doppler's and Michelson's emission fact are definitely irrelevant!
| Read the first line:
| http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
| It says THE emission theory, not Majorana's emission theory or
| Miller's emission theory or Nieminen's emission theory or even
| Santa Claus's emission theory, so take your bogus straw men and
| your irrelevant drivel and shove 'em you know where, Nieminen.
|
| Why not read the rest of the paragraph?

Because it is irrelevant to bouncing light off a mirror, that's why not.
You can throw up all the red herrings you want, Nieminen, if the light
hits the mirror at c' then it reflects from the mirror at -c'. Live with it.

Michelson wrote his paper in 1887 when Walter Ritz was 9 years old,
so he wasn't talking about Ritz's theory, but definitely talking about
emission theory.

Experiments that falsify your preferred relativity drool in favour of
Newton's, Doppler's and Michelson's emission fact are definitely irrelevant!
That's the end of science from Nieminen. Ooh! Science from Androcles!

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:02:43 +1000, Timo Nieminen
| wrote:
|
| On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, it was written:
|
| On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:06:30 +1000, Timo Nieminen

| wrote:
|
| On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Androcles wrote:
|
| 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'.
|
| Ooh! Science from Androcles!
|
| Not Ritz's emission theory then. Majorana's experiments (Phil mag 35,
163
| (1918), Phil Mag 37, 145 (1919)) support Ritz's emission theory over
this
| reflect at speed of c' relative to the mirror emission theory.
|
| (Miller's Michelson-Morley with sunlight dis-supports both of
| those versions, in favour of c relative to the mirror, a "new source"
| emission theory.)
|
| I don't see how that follows. Where is the moving mirror?
| If there is a speed change of the source, it is the same in both arms.
|
| More important is the fact that the beam passes through a glass plate,
which
| could easily cause the beams to emerge at god knows what speed.
|
| "God know what speed" isn't very scientific. What are the options? What
| are the observable consequences? Do some science!
|
| If you knew anything about science, I would bother to explain.
|
| But to put it layman's language, there is no reason to believe that light,
| which strikes the glass at c+v, exits at exactly the same speed.

Of course there is, you crazy old goat. The colour doesn't change,
and the refraction through a parallel block of glass produces parallel
light. There is every reason to believe that light, which strikes
the glass at c+v, exits at exactly the same speed.