What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Oct 21, 4:04*am, Byron Forbes wrote:
In article , says...











On Oct 19, 10:48*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

They are. Their whole religion is based on faith not evidence. There is not
one believable experiment in support of any of Einstein's crap...but they
keep telling each other there are thousands.

They are very believable. The difference perhaps, Ralph, is that this
does not imply that one will be FORCED to believe. You have taken the
option, as has Byron, of simply refusing to believe evidence that is
counter to your preconceived notions. "Nope, won't do it. Can't make
me." You raise this as though it were a taunt that means anything. It
doesn't. One cannot convince a rattan chair of anything, and you can't
convince a pile of salt. Nor would anyone try to convince them, or
you, of anything.

* * * * Produce the SR math for the MGP exp' and plug in the results and show it predicts the right result

Did you read the paper(s)? Remember there were two parts. The
predictions of relativity are calculated in it.

as the math for
the stationary ether did!

On Oct 21, 4:14*am, Byron Forbes wrote:
In article , says...











On Oct 20, 4:29*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:04:01 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

On Oct 20, 3:24*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:57:48 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

On Oct 19, 10:48*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

They are. Their whole religion is based on faith not evidence. There is not
one believable experiment in support of any of Einstein's crap....but they
keep telling each other there are thousands.

They are very believable. The difference perhaps, Ralph, is that this
does not imply that one will be FORCED to believe. You have taken the
option, as has Byron, of simply refusing to believe evidence that is
counter to your preconceived notions. "Nope, won't do it. Can't make
me." You raise this as though it were a taunt that means anything.. It
doesn't. One cannot convince a rattan chair of anything, and you can't
convince a pile of salt. Nor would anyone try to convince them, or
you, of anything.

Diaper, when you can show me an experiment which demonstrates how light from
different galaxies finds a unified speed towards little planet Earth, I will
believe you.

Experiments tell you what happens, not how they happen, Ralph.
Experiments DO show clearly that the light from galaxies is coming at
c, regardless of the speed of the galaxy relative to us. This is
unambiguous.

It is unproven, you mean.

No, it's observed to be true.
It's actually not complicated to measure the speed of light coming
from a distant galaxy.
So that's what you do. You measure it.

Now, your response is to say, "That can't happen, and no matter
whether the experiment shows that it DOES happen, unless it also shows
me HOW it happens, then it is not believable."
This of course is an idiot's approach to science.

What experiment has shown that light speed for all distant galaxies is
unified and exactly c wrt little planet Earth.
I think you are seriously deluded Diaper. You really should see a
psychiatrist.

In science, one acknowledges that what is revealed in experiment is in
fact WHAT is happening in nature, whether one understands how that
happens or not.

THe experiments you refer to exist only in your head.

Not at all, Ralph. They do exist. You've acknowledged them yourself.
You say they are experiments "done by relativists for relativists".
Obviously they exist.

Your incredulity of the results is irrelevant, as I've just explained.
Science doesn't dismiss results of corroborated experiments, even if
the results seem crazy. You do. That's your problem.

Then in science, it is the theoretical model that explains HOW that
happens. And if the model is successful in predicting what in fact
happens, then that model is taken to be supported by the evidence. The
model that does that most often and the broadest set of applications
is the one that is considered in science to be the best model
available.

The theoretical model says that all speeda are frame dependent by
definition.

No, it doesn't. I don't have any idea where you got that stupid idea.

The theoretical model says that the relationships between speeds in
different frames is given by this:
v' = (v+u)/(1+vu/c^2).
Any half-wit can see that this statement by the model is different
than your version of the statement.

* * * * Gotta luv that infinite bubble model! We have a bubble for every observer in the universe that makes light appear
to come from where it never ever was!

SR is not a model that shows the light coming from where it never was.
I'm sorry, Byron, but you spend all your time making claims that SR
says this or says that when it says no such thing.
You're just an endless supply of irrelevant garbage that has no
bearing at all on SR.

Would you like to start reading something so that you can find out
what SR really does say? I can make several excellent suggestions. I
think that would be best for you at this point.


* * * * Yeehah!









You, in comparison, don't believe a theoretical HOW because you choose
not to believe the experiments that show WHAT happens. And you don't
believe the experiments that show WHAT happens because the experiments
don't show you HOW it happens.

You just don't have the foggiest idea how to think like a scientist.
Thinking more like an asparagus is more your style.

Diaper, you only reply to my messages because it boosts your ego to think
you can converse with a real physicist, even if you do always make a
terrible fool of yourself.

I reply to your messages on occasion, Ralph, when you say things that
are so laughably stupid that it's worth highlighting exactly how
stupid they are. Giving over your stupidity with a yellow highlighter,
as it were.

"Androcles" wrote:
in message ...
"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 11:10 am, "Androcles" .
..2011 wrote:

Andro wrote:
One way or another, you have to explain how
rAB/(c+v) = rAB/(c-v) according to your Scripture,
you've had over 100 years to do it and YOU HAVEN'T
DONE SO. Be specific.

Jerry wrote:
You are conflating, distorting and misquoting two separate
equations.

Andro wrote:
Bull****, you LYING *******, the quotation is
"we establish by definition that the "time" required
by light to travel from A to B equals the "time"
it requires to travel from B to A. "

*We* do not so establish, only YOU and Einstein do.
You saying it doesn't make it so. Start establishing!
One way or another, YOU have to explain how
rAB/(c+v) = rAB/(c-v) according to YOUR Scripture,
you've had over 100 years to do it and YOU HAVEN'T DONE
SO. Be specific and don't blame me,
I've misquoted nothing, Jerry, you lying ****.

hanson wrote:
Let me do your desired establishing, again!
Of course, one way or another,
if "c" is infinitely large &/or v = 0
then rAB/(c+v) = rAB/(c-v).
(1) If v = 0 then obviously rAB/(c) = rAB/(c).
(2) If "c" is, like Einstein himself said:
|||AE||| "the velocity of light "c" in our theory (SR) plays the
|||AE||| part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
then too, obviously rAB/(c+v) = rAB/(c-v)

Therefore also, Enlightened folks in the "establishment"
and many who do Folk Physics, have long realized that:
((... but NOT so did those who do Parrot Physics and are
Einstein Dingleberries, or the bgullible ones in academia))
--------- SR is short for SILLY RANT ------- and
----- GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL -----

So, why the excitement, cussing & cursing?
Thanks for the laughs, guys, ahahahanson



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

On Oct 23, 1:59*pm, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message

...
On Oct 23, 11:10 am, "Androcles" .

2011 wrote:
One way or another, you have to explain how rAB/(c+v) = rAB/(c-v)
according
to your Scripture, you've had over 100 years to do it and YOU HAVEN'T DONE
SO. Be specific.

You are conflating, distorting and misquoting two separate
equations.
============================================
Bull****, you LYING *******, the quotation is
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from
A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. "

*We* do not so establish, only YOU and Einstein do.
You saying it doesn't make it so. Start establishing!
One way or another, YOU have to explain how rAB/(c+v) = rAB/(c-v) according
to YOUR Scripture, you've had over 100 years to do it and YOU HAVEN'T DONE
SO. Be specific and don't blame me, I've misquoted nothing, you lying ****.

On Oct 23, 11:10*am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message

...
On Oct 23, 10:40 am, "Androcles" .

2011 wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message

...
Bring your nose 10 cm to the computer screen.
Now back up to 50 cm from the computer screen.
Are you claiming that the computer screen looks 1/25 as bright
when viewed at the further distance?

Jerry

==============================================
I'd use an objective photocell rather than a subjective eye.

Question was answered. My computer screen is quite definitely
dimmer when seen at an angle from the side, its a problem with
TFT LCD technology.
Measured with a photocell I'm claiming the computer screen looks
1/25 as bright when viewed at the further distance.

You have stumbled in your analysis of your own intentionally
perverted misstatement of my visual exercise.

The computer screen is not a point source, and the inverse
square law does not apply at close range.

Jerry

In sci.physics Jerry wrote:
....
The computer screen is not a point source, and the inverse
square law does not apply at close range.

Yes, an actual 10/50 cm ratio as measured for a 17" LCD with randomly
1/2 the pixels white and 1/2 black is 6.2 -- quite a bit different from 25.

--
[The obvious cause of Ice Ages:]
But the Earth produces also the ice dust and export it into space.
Probably in ice ages the ice dust fall down on the Earth.
If the Earth was covered by ice the water to made it could not be from
oceans It was from the space.
-- "Szczepan Bialek" , 7 Jul 2011 10:08 +0200

On Oct 24, 3:52*am, wrote:
In sci.physics Jerry wrote:
...

The computer screen is not a point source, and the inverse
square law does not apply at close range.

Yes, an actual 10/50 cm ratio as measured for a 17" LCD with randomly
1/2 the pixels white and 1/2 black is 6.2 -- quite a bit different from 25.

....and of course, that's assuming (for simplicity) that each
pixel is radiating uniformly in all directions. Real LCD pixel
elements show a pronounced falloff of radiative intensity with
increasing deviation from the normal. I wouldn't be surprised if
the actual measured ratio for a 17" screen were closer to 3:1
rather than 6.2:1. It would be an interesting exercise. :-)

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 1:59 pm, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message

...
On Oct 23, 11:10 am, "Androcles" .

2011 wrote:
One way or another, you have to explain how rAB/(c+v) = rAB/(c-v)
according
to your Scripture, you've had over 100 years to do it and YOU HAVEN'T
DONE
SO. Be specific.

You are conflating, distorting and misquoting two separate
equations.
============================================
Bull****, you LYING *******, the quotation is
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from
A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. "

*We* do not so establish, only YOU and Einstein do.
You saying it doesn't make it so. Start establishing!
One way or another, YOU have to explain how rAB/(c+v) = rAB/(c-v)
according
to YOUR Scripture, you've had over 100 years to do it and YOU HAVEN'T DONE
SO. Be specific and don't blame me, I've misquoted nothing, you lying
****.

That statement that you quote does not translate into the
equation that you misquote.
===========================================
Bwahahahaha!
Right, it doesn't.
So one way or another, YOU have to provide the equation that the statement
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from
A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A " DOES translate
into
according to YOUR Scripture, you've had over 100 years to do it and YOU
HAVEN'T DONE SO. Be specific, you lying ****.

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 11:10 am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message

...
On Oct 23, 10:40 am, "Androcles" .

2011 wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message

...
Bring your nose 10 cm to the computer screen.
Now back up to 50 cm from the computer screen.
Are you claiming that the computer screen looks 1/25 as bright
when viewed at the further distance?

Jerry

==============================================
I'd use an objective photocell rather than a subjective eye.

Question was answered. My computer screen is quite definitely
dimmer when seen at an angle from the side, its a problem with
TFT LCD technology.
Measured with a photocell I'm claiming the computer screen looks
1/25 as bright when viewed at the further distance.

You have stumbled in your analysis of your own intentionally
perverted misstatement of my visual exercise.

The computer screen is not a point source, and the inverse
square law does not apply at close range.

Jerry
=====================================
You stumbled it up, I answered you.
Being a useless **** you can't answer me.

Bring your nose 10 cm (or meters, or kilometers) to the laser pointer.
Now back up to 50 cm (or meters, or kilometers) from the laser pointer.
Are you claiming that the laser pointer looks 1/25 as bright
when viewed at the further distance?

I can hit a reflective street sign at 100 meters with my 5 mw laser
pointer and its spot is as bright as a candle shining on a sheet of
paper 1 meter away.

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 3:52 am, wrote:
In sci.physics Jerry wrote:
...

The computer screen is not a point source, and the inverse
square law does not apply at close range.

Yes, an actual 10/50 cm ratio as measured for a 17" LCD with randomly
1/2 the pixels white and 1/2 black is 6.2 -- quite a bit different from
25.

....and of course, that's assuming (for simplicity) that each
pixel is radiating uniformly in all directions. Real LCD pixel
elements show a pronounced falloff of radiative intensity with
increasing deviation from the normal. I wouldn't be surprised if
the actual measured ratio for a 17" screen were closer to 3:1
rather than 6.2:1. It would be an interesting exercise. :-)

========================================
There are many fatal objections to your "real LCD pixel" theory.
Let me describe to you one problem: the backlit LED issue.
Bring your nose 10 cm (or meters, or kilometers) to the laser diode.
Now back up to 50 cm (or meters, or kilometers) from the laser diode.
Are you claiming that the laser diode looks 1/25 as bright
when viewed at the further distance, you stupid ****?