|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |