A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #261  
Old October 14th 11, 12:45 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

Jerry wrote in
:

On Oct 13, 4:06*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
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 fundamentally affects the results of TESTING your
theory.

The answer is unknown at
this stage for the simple reason that there is no known way to
find th

e
answer experimentally.


Oh come on! Simple as looking at a photo of the Hubble Deep Field!


Please explain in detail.


I'm not spoon-feeding you the answer, which is trivial.

Try reading a book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

Jerry


On one hand, he won't take you seriously. On the other, he demands you
teach him.

It is as pathological as it is adorable.
  #262  
Old October 14th 11, 12:57 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

In sci.physics 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!

....

My RNGs is already adequate, thanks.

--
[Feel the meta-evidence, Luke:]
The great thing about science is that once you understand it you tend
to defend it, especially against pretenders to science like the agw
activists here and at various institutions like the CRU, GISS, Penn
State and against political activists at the IPCC and Greenpeace.
-- Tunderbar , 8 Jul 2011 11:05 -0700 (PDT)
  #263  
Old October 14th 11, 01:06 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Timo Nieminen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

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.)
  #264  
Old October 14th 11, 01:57 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

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.
  #265  
Old October 14th 11, 01:58 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:45:48 +0000 (UTC), eric gisse
wrote:

Jerry wrote in
:

On Oct 13, 4:06*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
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 fundamentally affects the results of TESTING your
theory.

The answer is unknown at
this stage for the simple reason that there is no known way to
find th

e
answer experimentally.

Oh come on! Simple as looking at a photo of the Hubble Deep Field!

Please explain in detail.


I'm not spoon-feeding you the answer, which is trivial.

Try reading a book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

Jerry


On one hand, he won't take you seriously. On the other, he demands you
teach him.

It is as pathological as it is adorable.



Shhhh! Was that the squeal of relativist ratpack?
  #266  
Old October 14th 11, 03:19 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Androcles[_65_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 192
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?


"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.1110141000560.2643-100000@localhost...
| 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!
Not Newton's COROLLARY I then.
A body by two forces conjoined will describe the diagonal of a
parallelogram, in the same time that it would describe the sides, by those
forces apart.

If a body in a given time, by the force M impressed apart in the place A,
should with an uniform motion be carried from A to B; and by the force N
impressed apart in the same place, should be carried from A to C; complete
the parallelogram ABCD, and, by both forces acting together, it will in the
same time be carried in the diagonal from A to D. For since the force N acts
in the direction of the line AC, parallel to BD, this force (by the second
law) will not at all alter the velocity generated by the other force M, by
which the body is carried towards the line BD. The body therefore will
arrive at the line BD in the same time, whether the force N be impressed or
not; and therefore at the end of that time it will be found somewhere in the
line BD. By the same argument, at the end of the same time it will be found
somewhere in the line CD. Therefore it will be found in the point D, where
both lines meet. But it will move in a right line from A to D, by Law I.


  #267  
Old October 14th 11, 03:49 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Androcles[_65_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 192
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| 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.
|
Nieminen has been at his ozzie spirits in the dream time again, that's
why he's dys-sober.
The rules are the same for a game of billiards on a moving platform as
they are on a "stationary" platform. It's the same game played on the
Moon as it is played on Earth with less friction between the knap of
the cloth and the ball. If you hit the ball against the side rail/cushion
at sqrt((x/t)^2 + (y/t)^2) then it leaves at sqrt((x/t)^2 + (-y/t)^2),
if you hit the ball against the end rail/cushion at sqrt((x/t)^2 + (y/t)^2)
then it leaves at sqrt((-x/t)^2 + (y/t)^2).
If you want to add the velocity of the Moon to the velocity of the ball
then you'd damn well better add it to the velocity of the table or you'll
get crazy results.
MMX is no different.




  #268  
Old October 14th 11, 03:56 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Androcles[_65_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 192
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:53:33 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:30:02 +0100, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:14:24 +0100, "Androcles"
| | | wrote:
| | |
| | |
| | | "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| | | .. .
| | | | On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:02:07 +0100, "Androcles"
| | |
| | | |
| | | | 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.
| | |
| | | You were talking about light.
| |
| | "For sound, air is the frame of reference." - 14 lines above, you
| | stupid blind ignorant drunken *******.
| |
| | WHAT DID YOU SAY 11 LINES ABOVE?.., you stupid demented ignorant
drunken
| | pommie *******.
|
| f is frequency. **** off, imbecile.
|
| FOR BLOODY LIGHT you incredibly difficult chimp imitator.!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| 14 lines above where I said '14 lines above'....WHAT DID YOU SAY?
|

f is frequency whether for light or sound.!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh wait....
F IS FREQUENCY FOR BLOODY LIGHT, but f is frequency for bloody
sound.!!!!!!!!!!!!
**** off, deranged bloody babboon.!!!!!!!!!!!!



  #269  
Old October 14th 11, 04:50 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Oct 13, 10:59*pm, 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? 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.)


  #270  
Old October 14th 11, 04:56 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.