Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
|
| Why don't you ask your ****ing bank to include minus figures so you can
| increase your account by withdrawing money?

3000000 ly to NGC206? Use 100 instead, my theory of Wilson Thresholds..." -
****head Wilson.
You ****. **** off.
Androcles.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2006 09:42:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Tue, 02 May 2006 11:29:00 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



Henri Wilson wrote:


On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:27:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


YOUR classical version of the BaTh is not the modern one.

The modern one where the wave-particle duality does not exist? :-)


Paul, either you cannot read properly or you haven't been following my
messages.
My theory and calculations are based on duality. Light behaves like a particle
below the Wilson Threshold and like a wave in a dielectric medium.

Quite.
So we don't have to go on.
Your theory is falsified by the dual slit experiment.


How pathetic!!!!! You are not improving Paul...

It would be imposible to perform the double slit experiment below the Wilson
Threshold. The apparatus itself would see to that.

Definitely one of your better acrobatic manoeuvres, Henri! :-)


Paul, let me explain...
I didn't say the double slit experiment wouldn't work below the Wilson
Threshold.

In that case we agree that the double slit experiment
falsifies your theory.

Paul

On Thu, 04 May 2006 22:13:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2006 09:42:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Tue, 02 May 2006 11:29:00 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



Henri Wilson wrote:


On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:27:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


YOUR classical version of the BaTh is not the modern one.

The modern one where the wave-particle duality does not exist? :-)


Paul, either you cannot read properly or you haven't been following my
messages.
My theory and calculations are based on duality. Light behaves like a particle
below the Wilson Threshold and like a wave in a dielectric medium.

Quite.
So we don't have to go on.
Your theory is falsified by the dual slit experiment.


How pathetic!!!!! You are not improving Paul...

It would be imposible to perform the double slit experiment below the Wilson
Threshold. The apparatus itself would see to that.

Definitely one of your better acrobatic manoeuvres, Henri! :-)


Paul, let me explain...
I didn't say the double slit experiment wouldn't work below the Wilson
Threshold.

In that case we agree that the double slit experiment
falsifies your theory.

Sorry, I can't see the problem.

My photons have length, cross section and waves running along them....all the
ingredients for an interference pattern.


Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2006 22:13:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2006 09:42:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Tue, 02 May 2006 11:29:00 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



Henri Wilson wrote:


On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:27:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


YOUR classical version of the BaTh is not the modern one.

The modern one where the wave-particle duality does not exist? :-)


Paul, either you cannot read properly or you haven't been following my
messages.
My theory and calculations are based on duality. Light behaves like a particle
below the Wilson Threshold and like a wave in a dielectric medium.

Quite.
So we don't have to go on.
Your theory is falsified by the dual slit experiment.


How pathetic!!!!! You are not improving Paul...

It would be imposible to perform the double slit experiment below the Wilson
Threshold. The apparatus itself would see to that.

Definitely one of your better acrobatic manoeuvres, Henri! :-)


Paul, let me explain...
I didn't say the double slit experiment wouldn't work below the Wilson
Threshold.

In that case we agree that the double slit experiment
falsifies your theory.

Sorry, I can't see the problem.

My photons have length, cross section and waves running along them....all the
ingredients for an interference pattern.

Really!

If photons are finite in extent, then they should also have mass. What
is your prediction?

What is your prediction of their cross section? Why don't you work out
some simple photon-electron scattering examples using your theory that
replicate the Compton effect.



Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

Hexenmeister wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| On Wed, 03 May 2006 09:42:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| wrote:
|
| The double slit experiment can't be done in vacuum,
| so the many spectrometers in HST and other satellites don't work.
|
| Manmade vacuums don't even come close to Wilson Thresholds.
|
| The Hubble Space Telescope floats in a "manmade vacuum"?????
| Oh, come on!


Now see, that's where you show promise.
You thought of a situation where the bluff was so obvious that
Wilson can have no comeback (save a sneer), and you relied on
indisputable empirical data.

If you could keep that up I'd be right there with you, it's when
you repeat what you've been told that I doubt your abilities.
I'd far rather you thought.

I rather resent your implication that I slavishly repeat what I
am told by members of the physics establishment. I am not at
all afraid to challenge mainstream physics experts when I think
that they have made a mistake. For instance, Tom Roberts has
never satisfactorily identified to me the "second clock" that he
feels must exist in the Gagnon experiment, and he has persistently
misrepresented the experiment as a mistaken attempt to perform
a one-clock measurement of OWLS, when in fact it is a one-clock
measurement of OWLS ANISOTROPY. This is an extremely
important distinction. Likewise, I have endured enormous abuse
from the borderline brilliant/crankish Uncle Al, much admired by
many on this newsgroup, when I criticised his parity Eotvos
proposal as arrant nonsense.

On the other hand, I do not have the sort of inflated ego that
prevents me from admitting mistake. I have outright LOST major
arguments against Russell and against Sal, and have had to be
corrected by Bilge, Mati, and others when I made mistakes. I know
perfectly well that I am merely an interested amateur, and I am
careful not to venture into areas where I do not have sufficient
knowledge to express a knowledgeable opinion. I am mostly
interested in matters of experiment and observation, not theory,
where I would mostly be incompetent. Although I am quite at home
with SR theory, I understand full well that I do not have the
mathematical skills that would allow me to fully understand GR,
and so I focus on the experimental basis of GR rather than GR
theory, where I trust the experts.

You, on the other hand, do not seem to understand the limits
of your competency, and persistently venture on matters that
you do not understand. Your ego prevents you from ever taking
an objective look at yourself or admitting to any but trivial
mistakes. Your entire following rant against Einstein illustrates
this point:

Wilson invented his threshold when he forgot to include pitch in his
program, it only has yaw, no roll either but roll was of no importance,
and although he is right about ballistic light his worbits are all edge-on.
Hence empirical data has to be answered by "thresholds", which is pure
unadulterated nonsense.

In that respect Einstein is no different to Wilson who accepted
the word of John Goodricke and invented excuses to promote his
pet theory.

" let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity
of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school."
-- Einstein.

Assume????? Appealing to schoolchildren?????
Oh, come on!
It's absolute psychological garbage. Einstein would be ripped to
shreds by a newsgroup, let alone by Newton, if we were hearing him
for the first time.

"we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all
colours,
because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be
observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a
fixed star by its dark neighbour." -- Einstein.

What eclipse? Einstein is of course referring to Algol and the Goodricke
Assumption, but the Goodricke Assumption fails to take into account
the velocity of light being added to the velocity of it's source. Hence
the Aether Assumption.

Then along come Michelson and blows the aether out of existence,
Einstein seizes his chance and it's downhill all the way now,
assumption piled on assumption, Dark Matter, Black Holes,
Expanding Universe, Big Bang, all the attendant trivia as charlatans
attempt to "prove" their assumptions and be famous.
Error accumulates error.
Oh, come on!
(Notice no naughty words :-)
Androcles.

(notice no snips ;-)

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "Jerry" wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | Henri Wilson wrote:
| | On Wed, 03 May 2006 09:42:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| | wrote:
| |
| | The double slit experiment can't be done in vacuum,
| | so the many spectrometers in HST and other satellites don't work.
| |
| | Manmade vacuums don't even come close to Wilson Thresholds.
| |
| | The Hubble Space Telescope floats in a "manmade vacuum"?????
| | Oh, come on!
|
|
| Now see, that's where you show promise.
| You thought of a situation where the bluff was so obvious that
| Wilson can have no comeback (save a sneer), and you relied on
| indisputable empirical data.
|
| If you could keep that up I'd be right there with you, it's when
| you repeat what you've been told that I doubt your abilities.
| I'd far rather you thought.
|
| I rather resent your implication that I slavishly repeat what I
| am told by members of the physics establishment.

Why so many of you continually fall back on your emotions as if they
were viable argument is somewhat baffling, I've no formal training in
psychology. I'm somewhat autodidactic, though, I've learned a lot
psychology in fifteen years of physics newsgroups.

I don't imply you slavish repeat, I state it as a fact:
Mercury's orbital precession anomaly is an unexplainable 43 arc seconds per
century
is a slavish repetition of what you were told by members of the physics
establishment.
Oh, come on?

Resent the truth all you want to, it doesn't bother me. Resentment is not an
issue.

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us! " -
http://www.robertburns.org/works/97.shtml


| I am not at
| all afraid to challenge mainstream physics experts when I think
| that they have made a mistake.

Nor am I, Einstein made a mistake and I can prove it. You've made a mistake
in not paying attention to detail or you would have seen it too.


| For instance, Tom Roberts has
| never satisfactorily identified to me the "second clock" that he
| feels must exist in the Gagnon experiment, and he has persistently
| misrepresented the experiment as a mistaken attempt to perform
| a one-clock measurement of OWLS, when in fact it is a one-clock
| measurement of OWLS ANISOTROPY. This is an extremely
| important distinction.

Humpty Roberts slavishly repeats what he is told by members of the
physics establishment. He is so indoctrinated he refuses to even listen
to a counter argument. He runs from me, you'll find he seldom responds
to anything I say, whether polite or rude. He should have been an English
teacher and not aspire to physics or mathematics, he understands neither.


Humpty Roberts in Wonderland:

"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes

`I don't know what you mean by "observations",' Alice said.

Humpty Roberts smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell
you.
I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' shrug

`But "observations" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice
objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Roberts said, in rather a scornful tone,
shrug,
`it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' shrug

Alice asked "Why *say* observed when it is actually not observed?"

Humpty Roberts let out a great sigh.
" sigh", he said.
"The nuances of English. I was discussing the usage of words and
not the concepts they represent."
-- Tom Humpty Roberts
om

(With thanks to Lewis Carroll.)


| Likewise, I have endured enormous abuse
| from the borderline brilliant/crankish Uncle Al, much admired by
| many on this newsgroup, when I criticised his parity Eotvos
| proposal as arrant nonsense.

Haven't we all?
Proof "Uncle Al" cannot read:
"BTW, you ****-faced baboon, "(c+v) appears nowhere in the paper, nor
could it. Hey Androcyst, you are an ineducable idiot. Your high
school should be leveled and replaced by an abandoned bowling
alley." --Schwartz .
Here it is:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
Ya gotta love "nor could it".

Rather than be out-insulted I blitzed him for two days with a fraction of
my ammunition. I was loaded for bear, he folded and ran off complaining
of a "River of ****" with only two hooks in the water. Very unsporting,
I was cheated out of a war. Oh well, I still have the ammo. Let the coward
come back.

| On the other hand, I do not have the sort of inflated ego that
| prevents me from admitting mistake. I have outright LOST major
| arguments against Russell and against Sal, and have had to be
| corrected by Bilge, Mati, and others when I made mistakes.

Steve Lawrence (sal) is a coward like Humpty Roberts, refuses to listen
to reason, runs away. Russell is a lightweight.
You lost because you were outgunned by popguns. Perhaps you only
have a popgun yourself and fall back on emotion. Resentment will get you
nowhere. Nature is impartial and doesn't care, She is the only judge
and it is She that requires understanding, Her secrets are well hidden.
Her most closely guarded secret is the most fundamental. What is mass?


| I know
| perfectly well that I am merely an interested amateur, and I am
| careful not to venture into areas where I do not have sufficient
| knowledge to express a knowledgeable opinion.

You are not alone, few of us actually get paid and many wander into
areas in which they have no knowledge. That's what science IS.
The objective is to gain knowledge where none existed before.
If you slavish repeat what you are taught then you are a sheep,
not a scientist. Is it "knowledge" that the velocity of light is constant
in all frames of reference or is it slavish repetition of Einstein's idiocy?
There are lice, sheep, theorists and scientists. Which are you?
You must sort the wheat from the chaff before you can grind flour,
there are no shortcuts to the bread of knowledge.



| I am mostly
| interested in matters of experiment and observation, not theory,
| where I would mostly be incompetent.

Very good.
Do sticks bend as you put them in water?
a) Yes, we observe they do.
b) No, our observation is distorted by refraction.
c) Maybe, but it doesn't seem plausible. How can I find out?

Has anyone observed an accretion disk near a black hole?
a) Yes, Humpty Roberts says so.
b) No, even black holes have not been found.
c) Maybe, but I don't know who it was.

Do stars blow up twice in 3 months?
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
a) Yes, we observe they do.
b) No, the velocity of light is source dependent.
c) Maybe, but it doesn't seem plausible. How can I find out?


| Although I am quite at home
| with SR theory, I understand full well that I do not have the
| mathematical skills that would allow me to fully understand GR,
| and so I focus on the experimental basis of GR rather than GR
| theory, where I trust the experts.

Is Algol a binary star system?
a) Yes, the experts say so.
b) No, the velocity of light is source dependent.
c) Maybe... an "expert" said:
"But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and density,
and the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit of the K2, while the K2
is just at the Roche limit of the B8. That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe
completely, and mass is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart
and there is an accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn.
(This accretion disk is not stable, though. It is a transient disk; the mass
transferred from the K2 bounces off the surface of the B8 and eventually
falls back to the surface.) "

"Ex" is a has-been, "spirt" is a drip.
Only the gullible trust an expert.


| You, on the other hand, do not seem to understand the limits
| of your competency, and persistently venture on matters that
| you do not understand.

"Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest of the all?"

Snow White, you ugly old bag.
What do I not understand, ****head? Your resentment? You are correct,
I don't.
I'm a magician, I can put a webcam in a hovel and find a broad getting
seven times more dick than you do.
**** you and your competency, you don't know the meaning
of the word.


| Your ego prevents you from ever taking
| an objective look at yourself or admitting to any but trivial
| mistakes. Your entire following rant against Einstein illustrates
| this point:
|
| Wilson invented his threshold when he forgot to include pitch in his
| program, it only has yaw, no roll either but roll was of no importance,
| and although he is right about ballistic light his worbits are all
edge-on.
| Hence empirical data has to be answered by "thresholds", which is pure
| unadulterated nonsense.
|
| In that respect Einstein is no different to Wilson who accepted
| the word of John Goodricke and invented excuses to promote his
| pet theory.
|
| " let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity
| of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school."
| -- Einstein.
|
| Assume????? Appealing to schoolchildren?????
| Oh, come on!
| It's absolute psychological garbage. Einstein would be ripped to
| shreds by a newsgroup, let alone by Newton, if we were hearing him
| for the first time.
|
| "we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all
| colours,
| because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be
| observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a
| fixed star by its dark neighbour." -- Einstein.
|
| What eclipse? Einstein is of course referring to Algol and the Goodricke
| Assumption, but the Goodricke Assumption fails to take into account
| the velocity of light being added to the velocity of it's source. Hence
| the Aether Assumption.
|
| Then along come Michelson and blows the aether out of existence,
| Einstein seizes his chance and it's downhill all the way now,
| assumption piled on assumption, Dark Matter, Black Holes,
| Expanding Universe, Big Bang, all the attendant trivia as charlatans
| attempt to "prove" their assumptions and be famous.
| Error accumulates error.
| Oh, come on!
| (Notice no naughty words :-)
| Androcles.
|
| (notice no snips ;-)

Repeating what I said back to me shows I made a trivial mistake?
Where is the "trivial mistake" you wished to illustrate, Jeery?
Oh, come on!
Androcles.

Jerry wrote:
Hexenmeister wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| On Wed, 03 May 2006 09:42:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| wrote:
|
| The double slit experiment can't be done in vacuum,
| so the many spectrometers in HST and other satellites don't work.
|
| Manmade vacuums don't even come close to Wilson Thresholds.
|
| The Hubble Space Telescope floats in a "manmade vacuum"?????
| Oh, come on!


Now see, that's where you show promise.
You thought of a situation where the bluff was so obvious that
Wilson can have no comeback (save a sneer), and you relied on
indisputable empirical data.

If you could keep that up I'd be right there with you, it's when
you repeat what you've been told that I doubt your abilities.
I'd far rather you thought.

I rather resent your implication that I slavishly repeat what I
am told by members of the physics establishment. I am not at
all afraid to challenge mainstream physics experts when I think
that they have made a mistake. For instance, Tom Roberts has
never satisfactorily identified to me the "second clock" that he
feels must exist in the Gagnon experiment, and he has persistently
misrepresented the experiment as a mistaken attempt to perform
a one-clock measurement of OWLS, when in fact it is a one-clock
measurement of OWLS ANISOTROPY. This is an extremely
important distinction. Likewise, I have endured enormous abuse
from the borderline brilliant/crankish Uncle Al, much admired by
many on this newsgroup, when I criticised his parity Eotvos
proposal as arrant nonsense.

On the other hand, I do not have the sort of inflated ego that
prevents me from admitting mistake. I have outright LOST major
arguments against Russell and against Sal, and have had to be
corrected by Bilge, Mati, and others when I made mistakes. I know
perfectly well that I am merely an interested amateur, and I am
careful not to venture into areas where I do not have sufficient
knowledge to express a knowledgeable opinion. I am mostly
interested in matters of experiment and observation, not theory,
where I would mostly be incompetent. Although I am quite at home
with SR theory, I understand full well that I do not have the
mathematical skills that would allow me to fully understand GR,
and so I focus on the experimental basis of GR rather than GR
theory, where I trust the experts.

You, on the other hand, do not seem to understand the limits
of your competency, and persistently venture on matters that
you do not understand. Your ego prevents you from ever taking
an objective look at yourself or admitting to any but trivial
mistakes. Your entire following rant against Einstein illustrates
this point:

Wilson invented his threshold when he forgot to include pitch in his
program, it only has yaw, no roll either but roll was of no importance,
and although he is right about ballistic light his worbits are all edge-on.
Hence empirical data has to be answered by "thresholds", which is pure
unadulterated nonsense.

In that respect Einstein is no different to Wilson who accepted
the word of John Goodricke and invented excuses to promote his
pet theory.

" let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity
of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school."
-- Einstein.

Assume????? Appealing to schoolchildren?????
Oh, come on!
It's absolute psychological garbage. Einstein would be ripped to
shreds by a newsgroup, let alone by Newton, if we were hearing him
for the first time.

"we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all
colours,
because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be
observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a
fixed star by its dark neighbour." -- Einstein.

What eclipse? Einstein is of course referring to Algol and the Goodricke
Assumption, but the Goodricke Assumption fails to take into account
the velocity of light being added to the velocity of it's source. Hence
the Aether Assumption.

Then along come Michelson and blows the aether out of existence,
Einstein seizes his chance and it's downhill all the way now,
assumption piled on assumption, Dark Matter, Black Holes,
Expanding Universe, Big Bang, all the attendant trivia as charlatans
attempt to "prove" their assumptions and be famous.
Error accumulates error.
Oh, come on!
(Notice no naughty words :-)
Androcles.

(notice no snips ;-)

Jerry

Wake up to reality. These idiots you invoke as 'physics experts' would
have people believe that buildings can in-place freefall due to a
couple of hours of minor fire damage. If they don't understand _basic_
physics, how could they understand anything more complicated? Reality
is important you know.

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

Mission accomplished.
Well done, Androcles, you managed to snip. Pat self on back.
Androcles

Hexenmeister wrote:

Repeating what I said back to me shows I made a trivial mistake?

First of all, your mistakes are not trivial, but totally fundamental.
In comic book/gamer terminology, you would be described as a
game master who "retcons" history as well as all of physical
reality to match your fantasies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon

Jerry

"Jerry" SNIPPED in message
oups.com...
**** off.
Androcles