What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Oct 14, 4:20*pm, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" wrote:
| 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.

So:

(a) Not relevant to a comparison of Ritz's emission theory and reflect
at c'=c+v emission theories. Why bring it up, especially if you
complain about red herrings?

(b) He was talking about emission theories that fail to support the
experimental evidence. Read the rest of the paragraph: "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." That's Michelson saying why emission theory is wrong, and why
there must be an aether.

No science from you any more? Just retreat from the experimental
evidence, just a smoke screen of irrelevant red herrings, snipping the
uncomfortable parts of the discussion you have no answer to. Pretty
standard Androclitic "argument" - all that's missing is a whole bunch
of insults and swearing, and claims of kill-filing.

On Oct 15, 12:55*am, Jerry wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:59*am, "Androcles" .

2011 wrote:
Androcles believes only what can proven; that rules out all of
relativity, big bonks, black holes, dork matter, dork energy,
expanding universes or any other crazy impossible **** you
morons like to wallow and speculate in. Androcles knows the
difference between an axiom, an hypothesis and a wild and
silly guess. The light curves of cepheids, recurrent novae
and "eclipsing" variables correlate with light speed being
source dependent and the sources moving Keplerian orbits,

1) "Androcles believes only what can proven"
2) "correlates with" does not constitute proof.
3) Therefore Androcles does not believe in source dependency of
* *light speed.

Assuming that Androcles tells the truth. The claim 1) above, and the
experimental evidence about emission,

"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.",

and his statements of what he believes true: "Newton's, Doppler's and
Michelson's emission fact" are not entirely consistent. Might not be
dishonesty - could just be stupidity.

On Oct 14, 6:40*pm, Jerry wrote:
Expansion of the universe plus the observation that a reflecting
telescope in space brings all objects in a mixed field to a
common focus is inconsistent with non-reflect-at-incident-speed
versions of emission theory unless
1) expansion of the universe is wrong, and red-shift is not due
* *to Doppler effect, OR
2) the principle of least action is wrong, and the rule that
* *incident angle equals reflected angle holds regardless of the
* *relative speeds of incident and reflected beams, OR
3) a zone of extinction exists around the sun extending thousands
* *of astronomical units where the speed of light is unified.

Aberration of light plus the observation that all objects in a
mixed telescopic field remain in the same relative position over
the course of a year is inconsistent with all forms of emission
theory unless
1) expansion of the universe is wrong, and red-shift is not due
* *to Doppler effect, OR
2) a zone of extinction exists around the sun extending thousands
* *of astronomical units where the speed of light is unified.

Not one of the historical arguments, since Hubble post-dates general
rejection of emission theory. Acceptance of classical (Maxwell)
electrodynamics was the biggest nail in the coffin - Ritz was a
response to Maxwellian theory. That, the electrodynamics of moving
bodies being explained, and quantum theory of light, what need for
emission theory?

But for modern discussion, it would be fine. But this would require
the emissionists to sensibly discuss science, instead of having
tantrums.

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Oct 14, 4:20 pm, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" wrote:
| 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.

So:

(a) Not relevant to a comparison of Ritz's emission theory and reflect
at c'=c+v emission theories. Why bring it up, especially if you
complain about red herrings?
=============================================
Very clever, Niemenin. Snip the context that I was replying to to
Wilson, shove your ****ing oar in with Ritz's theory and then say
I brought it up. **** off, you hypocritical drunken lying *******, if
you can't understand conservation of momentum and relative motion
that's your problem. Go experiment with a bat and ball. Learn to play
cricket or something, golf isn't the only game in town.


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| 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'.

Don't blame me for any snipping, and too bad you don't understand
Doppler radar.

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Oct 15, 12:55 am, Jerry wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:59 am, "Androcles" .

2011 wrote:
Androcles believes only what can proven; that rules out all of
relativity, big bonks, black holes, dork matter, dork energy,
expanding universes or any other crazy impossible **** you
morons like to wallow and speculate in. Androcles knows the
difference between an axiom, an hypothesis and a wild and
silly guess. The light curves of cepheids, recurrent novae
and "eclipsing" variables correlate with light speed being
source dependent and the sources moving Keplerian orbits,

1) "Androcles believes only what can proven"
2) "correlates with" does not constitute proof.
3) Therefore Androcles does not believe in source dependency of
light speed.

Assuming that Androcles tells the truth. The claim 1) above, and the
experimental evidence about emission,

"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.",

and his statements of what he believes true: "Newton's, Doppler's and
Michelson's emission fact" are not entirely consistent. Might not be
dishonesty - could just be stupidity.
==============================================
"An explanation on the undulatory theory of light ..."
(crank Maxwell's light as a wave in aether theory)
"This new explanation ..."
"But it failed to account..."
"It" is clearly the new undulatory theory of light, waving Maxwell's aether.

"But [the undulatory theory of light] failed to account for the fact
proved by experiment that the aberration was unchanged when
observations were made with a telescope filled with water."
Might not be Dr. Nieminen's stupidity -- could just be his dishonesty.
Let's see if he 'fesses up and admits he can't read.

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Oct 14, 6:40 pm, Jerry wrote:
Expansion of the universe plus the observation that a reflecting
telescope in space brings all objects in a mixed field to a
common focus is inconsistent with non-reflect-at-incident-speed
versions of emission theory unless
1) expansion of the universe is wrong, and red-shift is not due
to Doppler effect, OR
2) the principle of least action is wrong, and the rule that
incident angle equals reflected angle holds regardless of the
relative speeds of incident and reflected beams, OR
3) a zone of extinction exists around the sun extending thousands
of astronomical units where the speed of light is unified.

Aberration of light plus the observation that all objects in a
mixed telescopic field remain in the same relative position over
the course of a year is inconsistent with all forms of emission
theory unless
1) expansion of the universe is wrong, and red-shift is not due
to Doppler effect, OR
2) a zone of extinction exists around the sun extending thousands
of astronomical units where the speed of light is unified.

Not one of the historical arguments, since Hubble post-dates general
rejection of emission theory. Acceptance of classical (Maxwell)
electrodynamics was the biggest nail in the coffin - Ritz was a
response to Maxwellian theory. That, the electrodynamics of moving
bodies being explained, and quantum theory of light, what need for
emission theory?

But for modern discussion, it would be fine. But this would require
the emissionists to sensibly discuss science, instead of having
tantrums.
=================================================
It's your stupid tantrum, Nieminen. Or it could just be your dishonesty.
This is a correlation:
Theoretical c+v:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
Actual data:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
"We still have to find the amplitude of the waves, as it appears in the
moving system. If we call the amplitude of the electric or magnetic force A
or A' respectively, accordingly as it is measured in the stationary system
or in the moving system, we obtain"

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...res/img116.gif

"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 imbecile Einstein.

Not to blow my own trumpet, but I am the first to apply emission
theory to REAL cepheids, so called "eclipsing" variables and
recurrent novae moving in Keplerian orbits. Wilson was the first
to take it seriously but his programming skills are a little lacking
and he always wants to complicate what is really simple.
The rest of you aren't scientists, you ******s all have your heads
up Einstein's arse and can only see his 18th century ****, started
off by Goodricke.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Timo Nieminen
wrote:

On Oct 14, 4:19*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:02:43 +1000, Timo Nieminen
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, it was written:

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.

Pah! There are many reasons, which is more than no reason. One reason,
huygens did over 300 years ago! The light must emerge with the same
wavelength as it entered (same wavevector, even). Unless you are a
frequency skeptic, then the emergence speed is the same as the entry
speed.

Want to reject the wave theory of light?

It applies to waves in a medium. Where is that medium?

In which case, don't bother
being an anti-relativity skeptic yet; you should start with being an
anti-wave-theory skeptic.

Photons are oscillating particles. They carry their own 'medium' along with
them. Diffraction and refraction are explainable in terms of intrinsic
photon oscillation and arrival phase.

Otherwise, the old emission theories say c+v (where v is the speed of
the source relative to the glass plate) or c, depending on which
theory.

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

(a) There is experimental evidence, so don't try to make out that
there isn't.

Don't bull****.
Nobody has measured the OWLS of light exiting a glass plate at all, let
alone when light was derived from a moving source.


(b) If you want experiment evidence in the direct consequence of
testing different versions of emission theory, sit down, do the
theory. Then look to see if the experiment has been down (a bit of
library research will do you good), and if not, do it. Then, perhaps,
you can do science instead of blubbering away on usenet.

I've done my own research thank you, using variable stars, and it shows
conclusively that light speed from remote sources is source dependent.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:59:12 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Oct 14, 12:31 am, Timo Nieminen wrote:
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.

Expansion of the universe plus the observation that a reflecting
telescope in space brings all objects in a mixed field to a
common focus is inconsistent with non-reflect-at-incident-speed
versions of emission theory unless
1) expansion of the universe is wrong, and red-shift is not due
to Doppler effect, OR
2) the principle of least action is wrong, and the rule that
incident angle equals reflected angle holds regardless of the
relative speeds of incident and reflected beams, OR
3) a zone of extinction exists around the sun extending thousands
of astronomical units where the speed of light is unified.

Aberration of light plus the observation that all objects in a
mixed telescopic field remain in the same relative position over
the course of a year is inconsistent with all forms of emission
theory unless
1) expansion of the universe is wrong, and red-shift is not due
to Doppler effect, OR
2) a zone of extinction exists around the sun extending thousands
of astronomical units where the speed of light is unified.

Henry Wilson cheerfully discards the big bang theory AND the
principle of least action AND believes in a speed unification
bubble around the sun.

I'm not sure what Androcles believes.

Jerry
======================================
Androcles believes only what can proven; that rules out all of
relativity, big bonks, black holes, dork matter, dork energy,
expanding universes or any other crazy impossible **** you
morons like to wallow and speculate in. Androcles knows the
difference between an axiom, an hypothesis and a wild and
silly guess. The light curves of cepheids, recurrent novae
and "eclipsing" variables correlate with light speed being
source dependent and the sources moving Keplerian orbits,
and all you 19th century holy-one-speed-of-light-only-praise-
Einstein-and-Maxwell's-aether believers can kiss my arse, you
are all insane, there isn't a scientist among you.

Hooray! Andro got something right. He must be sober...

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:04:58 -0700 (PDT), Timo Nieminen
wrote:

On Oct 15, 12:55*am, Jerry wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:59*am, "Androcles" .

2011 wrote:
Androcles believes only what can proven; that rules out all of
relativity, big bonks, black holes, dork matter, dork energy,
expanding universes or any other crazy impossible **** you
morons like to wallow and speculate in. Androcles knows the
difference between an axiom, an hypothesis and a wild and
silly guess. The light curves of cepheids, recurrent novae
and "eclipsing" variables correlate with light speed being
source dependent and the sources moving Keplerian orbits,

1) "Androcles believes only what can proven"
2) "correlates with" does not constitute proof.
3) Therefore Androcles does not believe in source dependency of
* *light speed.

Assuming that Androcles tells the truth. The claim 1) above, and the
experimental evidence about emission,

"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.",

Why should it change? ...but even if it did, the change in angle would be
too small to detect.

But anyway, by the time all starlight reaches any telescope on Earth, its
speed is unified to c/n.

You are just another clueless Einstein worshipper.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:30:26 -0700 (PDT), Timo Nieminen
wrote:

On Oct 14, 6:40*pm, Jerry wrote:
Expansion of the universe plus the observation that a reflecting
telescope in space brings all objects in a mixed field to a
common focus is inconsistent with non-reflect-at-incident-speed
versions of emission theory unless
1) expansion of the universe is wrong, and red-shift is not due
* *to Doppler effect, OR
2) the principle of least action is wrong, and the rule that
* *incident angle equals reflected angle holds regardless of the
* *relative speeds of incident and reflected beams, OR
3) a zone of extinction exists around the sun extending thousands
* *of astronomical units where the speed of light is unified.

Aberration of light plus the observation that all objects in a
mixed telescopic field remain in the same relative position over
the course of a year is inconsistent with all forms of emission
theory unless
1) expansion of the universe is wrong, and red-shift is not due
* *to Doppler effect, OR
2) a zone of extinction exists around the sun extending thousands
* *of astronomical units where the speed of light is unified.

Not one of the historical arguments, since Hubble post-dates general
rejection of emission theory. Acceptance of classical (Maxwell)
electrodynamics was the biggest nail in the coffin - Ritz was a
response to Maxwellian theory. That, the electrodynamics of moving
bodies being explained, and quantum theory of light, what need for
emission theory?

But for modern discussion, it would be fine. But this would require
the emissionists to sensibly discuss science, instead of having
tantrums.

You wont find anything more sensible than this:

www.scisite.info/brightness.exe