Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What Happens to an EM Quantum?
80 views
Skip to first unread message
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 18, 2012, 7:09:06 PM8/18/12
to
Consider a photon emitted during the energy transition of an electron in a
remote H atom. What subsequently happens to it?
Now before any of you start ranting and raving, I might remind you that
nobody knows the answer to this question. Physics might have come a long
way but still cannot provide explanations to many basic questions like this
one. Modern QM offers nothing more than meaningless statistical drivel. In
all reality, the nature of light in transit remains a complete mystery.
Some here will claim that the EM quantum has no physical properties itself
and is nothing but a disturbance in a 'universal aether'. This is compatible
with diffraction phenomena and the inverse square law but cannot explain its
particle-like movement in a single direction or the PE effect? It cannot
explain how a gamma particle differs from an IR quantum. There is no
evidence of any such light carrying medium.
The known facts are these: A minute amount of EM energy (a quantum or
photon) is emitted at the atomic level during a charge energy transition.
That quantum moves at c away from its source in one direction and in a
straight line. It continues to travel until it is absorbed or deflected by a
random target.
Whilst the whole idea of considering photons in 'mechanical' terms is hardly
appropriate, the nature of their creation suggests that they are discreet
particles, emitted during a finite time and occupying an amount of space.
They therefore possess length and cross section as well as unknown intrinsic
properties that remain open to speculation. A photon might be described as a
'self contained droplet of aether', that being the 'stuff that fields are
made of'.
It is almost inconceivable, however, that whatever is emitted could or
should retain its original 'form' whilst traveling for millions of years
through space. I argue that the 'structure' of a photon immediately after
emission is not maintained over vast distances. Rather, a photon spreads out
as it goes and eventually merges with other photons heading in the same
direction. At any point in space, EM will be detectable, passing through
intermittently or continuously depending on the amount, in all directions
and over a wide range of velocities.
In a particular direction, the result is broad wavefront of light that
contains a range of wavelengths, each one of which retains aspects of its
original character whilst acquiring a degree of coherence with others. The
addition of photons of many random wavelengths and phases does not create a
null as might be expected from simple wave theory. Rather, the energy of all
photons adds together to conserve the energy flow, except during diffraction
and interference around objects, where reinforcement and annihilation result
from incoming phase relationships. The concept of broad wavefronts is
supported by the successful operation of large telescope arrays.
The suggestion is that traveling photons are continually interacting with
each other but in such a weak and slow motion manner that attempts to detect
such phenomenon in the lab is doomed to failure. The process may take years
to occur in pure vacuum to any noticeable degree.
.
remote H atom. What subsequently happens to it?
Now before any of you start ranting and raving, I might remind you that
nobody knows the answer to this question. Physics might have come a long
way but still cannot provide explanations to many basic questions like this
one. Modern QM offers nothing more than meaningless statistical drivel. In
all reality, the nature of light in transit remains a complete mystery.
Some here will claim that the EM quantum has no physical properties itself
and is nothing but a disturbance in a 'universal aether'. This is compatible
with diffraction phenomena and the inverse square law but cannot explain its
particle-like movement in a single direction or the PE effect? It cannot
explain how a gamma particle differs from an IR quantum. There is no
evidence of any such light carrying medium.
The known facts are these: A minute amount of EM energy (a quantum or
photon) is emitted at the atomic level during a charge energy transition.
That quantum moves at c away from its source in one direction and in a
straight line. It continues to travel until it is absorbed or deflected by a
random target.
Whilst the whole idea of considering photons in 'mechanical' terms is hardly
appropriate, the nature of their creation suggests that they are discreet
particles, emitted during a finite time and occupying an amount of space.
They therefore possess length and cross section as well as unknown intrinsic
properties that remain open to speculation. A photon might be described as a
'self contained droplet of aether', that being the 'stuff that fields are
made of'.
It is almost inconceivable, however, that whatever is emitted could or
should retain its original 'form' whilst traveling for millions of years
through space. I argue that the 'structure' of a photon immediately after
emission is not maintained over vast distances. Rather, a photon spreads out
as it goes and eventually merges with other photons heading in the same
direction. At any point in space, EM will be detectable, passing through
intermittently or continuously depending on the amount, in all directions
and over a wide range of velocities.
In a particular direction, the result is broad wavefront of light that
contains a range of wavelengths, each one of which retains aspects of its
original character whilst acquiring a degree of coherence with others. The
addition of photons of many random wavelengths and phases does not create a
null as might be expected from simple wave theory. Rather, the energy of all
photons adds together to conserve the energy flow, except during diffraction
and interference around objects, where reinforcement and annihilation result
from incoming phase relationships. The concept of broad wavefronts is
supported by the successful operation of large telescope arrays.
The suggestion is that traveling photons are continually interacting with
each other but in such a weak and slow motion manner that attempts to detect
such phenomenon in the lab is doomed to failure. The process may take years
to occur in pure vacuum to any noticeable degree.
.
Androcles
Aug 18, 2012, 7:13:13 PM8/18/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:8cht281bulh8sp1fk...@4ax.com...
Consider a photon emitted during the energy transition of an electron in a
remote H atom. What subsequently happens to it?
Now before any of you start ranting and raving,
====
Wilson will begin ranting and raving.
(Ranting and raving snipped. )
Energy is conserved. That's what happens to it.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
news:8cht281bulh8sp1fk...@4ax.com...
Consider a photon emitted during the energy transition of an electron in a
remote H atom. What subsequently happens to it?
Now before any of you start ranting and raving,
Wilson will begin ranting and raving.
(Ranting and raving snipped. )
Energy is conserved. That's what happens to it.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 18, 2012, 7:22:46 PM8/18/12
to
and rave....
space...@gmail.com
Aug 18, 2012, 7:26:40 PM8/18/12
to
For absorption only waves are necessary.
How many waves is a photon in?
Magnetic? Electric? but which one?
Mitchell Raemsch
xxein
Aug 18, 2012, 11:19:09 PM8/18/12
to
a toilet.
Don Stockbauer
Aug 18, 2012, 11:23:06 PM8/18/12
to
Androcles
Aug 19, 2012, 4:58:58 AM8/19/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:nq8038hsglhu59ada...@4ax.com...
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:13:13 +0100, "Androcles" <aug...@2012.org> wrote:
>"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>news:8cht281bulh8sp1fk...@4ax.com...
>
>Consider a photon emitted during the energy transition of an electron in a
>remote H atom. What subsequently happens to it?
>
>Now before any of you start ranting and raving,
>====
>Wilson will begin ranting and raving.
>(Ranting and raving snipped. )
>Energy is conserved. That's what happens to it.
>
>-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Y.y.Porat
Aug 19, 2012, 6:28:26 AM8/19/12
to
notonly energy is consrved
one of the great disaters that happpend to 'Modern physics'
for too many decades is the idiotcmoronic idea
that
mass is not conserved !!
mass is conserved exactly as energy is conserved
because
energy is mass in movement
thephootn has mass - the only mass
if not enough
i proved and found the smallest pjoton mass to be
about
exp -90 KILOGRAMS !!
got it idiot parrots ??
KILOGRAMS OF MASS - THE ONLY MASS
NOT RELATIVISTIC AND NOR SCHMELATIVISTIC !!!
2
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
now idiots once you get it
you willnot even start with the idiotic idea
of Higs Bosons!
because
if energy has mass
who needs the F=en Higgs togive mass to anything
wqhile
energy is doing it simply and easyly !!
as for now
physics is wasting billions of $
of nonsense crcked physics
without blinking an eye
it is a crime against mankind that suffers
economic crisis
and does not need more shameless croocks
to waist its scares resources on idiotic
moronic ideas
that are dead at arrival !!!
Y.Porat
------------------------------------------
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 19, 2012, 5:56:24 PM8/19/12
to
Since MY theory of traveling photons is the ONLY theory of traveling
photons, you are in no position to criticize it.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 19, 2012, 5:57:26 PM8/19/12
to
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:28:26 -0700 (PDT), "Y.y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dead right Porat!
Physics has been hijacked by Einsteinian morons...
>
>Y.Porat
>------------------------------------------
>
>
wrote:
Physics has been hijacked by Einsteinian morons...
>
>Y.Porat
>------------------------------------------
>
>
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 19, 2012, 6:00:08 PM8/19/12
to
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:58:58 +0100, "Androcles" <aug...@2012.org> wrote:
>"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>news:nq8038hsglhu59ada...@4ax.com...
>
>On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:13:13 +0100, "Androcles" <aug...@2012.org> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>>news:8cht281bulh8sp1fk...@4ax.com...
>>
>>Consider a photon emitted during the energy transition of an electron in a
>>remote H atom. What subsequently happens to it?
>>
>>Now before any of you start ranting and raving,
>>====
>>Wilson will begin ranting and raving.
>>(Ranting and raving snipped. )
>>Energy is conserved. That's what happens to it.
>>
>>-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
>
>[snip Wilson's further subject change ranting and raving ]
>Energy is conserved. That's what happens to it.
>
>-- Lord Androcles, Turd of the Walkway
>"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>news:nq8038hsglhu59ada...@4ax.com...
>
>On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:13:13 +0100, "Androcles" <aug...@2012.org> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>>news:8cht281bulh8sp1fk...@4ax.com...
>>
>>Consider a photon emitted during the energy transition of an electron in a
>>remote H atom. What subsequently happens to it?
>>
>>Now before any of you start ranting and raving,
>>====
>>Wilson will begin ranting and raving.
>>(Ranting and raving snipped. )
>>Energy is conserved. That's what happens to it.
>>
>>-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
>
>[snip Wilson's further subject change ranting and raving ]
>Energy is conserved. That's what happens to it.
>
.....Why does the world need psychiatrists when insanity is so obvious?
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 19, 2012, 6:45:25 PM8/19/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:eao238ha4b5l3idnp...@4ax.com...
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:58:58 +0100, "Androcles" <aug...@2012.org> wrote:
>"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>news:nq8038hsglhu59ada...@4ax.com...
>
>On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:13:13 +0100, "Androcles" <aug...@2012.org> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>>news:8cht281bulh8sp1fk...@4ax.com...
>>
>>Consider a photon emitted during the energy transition of an electron in a
>>remote H atom. What subsequently happens to it?
>>
>>Now before any of you start ranting and raving,
>>====
>>Wilson will begin ranting and raving.
>>(Ranting and raving snipped. )
>>Energy is conserved. That's what happens to it.
>>
>>-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
>
>[snip Wilson's further subject change ranting and raving ]
>Energy is conserved. That's what happens to it.
wrote in message news:c2e22b97-80a0-4b7e...@googlegroups.com
Dib,dib,dib. Dob,dob,dob.
Naturally he is the leader of the total fuckwits.
Challenge him for the title, Daisy, he's taken your job.
Poutnik
Aug 19, 2012, 6:51:12 PM8/19/12
to
Henry Wilson DSc. from ..@..
posted Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:56:24 +1000
>
> Do you have a better theory? No!
>
> Since MY theory of traveling photons is the ONLY theory of traveling
> photons, you are in no position to criticize it.
--
Poutnik
Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 19, 2012, 10:19:33 PM8/19/12
to
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 00:51:12 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>Henry Wilson DSc. from ..@..
>posted Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:56:24 +1000
>
>
>
>>
>> Do you have a better theory? No!
>>
>> Since MY theory of traveling photons is the ONLY theory of traveling
>> photons, you are in no position to criticize it.
>
>Ignorance or lie ?
It's true Poutnik. In spite of three hundred years of discussion by useless
>
>Henry Wilson DSc. from ..@..
>posted Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:56:24 +1000
>
>
>
>>
>> Do you have a better theory? No!
>>
>> Since MY theory of traveling photons is the ONLY theory of traveling
>> photons, you are in no position to criticize it.
>
>Ignorance or lie ?
physics academics, not one of them has been able to come up with a theory of
traveling light.
Mine is the only one in existence.
Y
Aug 20, 2012, 5:33:29 AM8/20/12
to
-y
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 20, 2012, 6:16:01 PM8/20/12
to
In four hundred years of physics, there have been plenty of theories about
the creation and absorption of light. ....but until I came along, there has
not been ONE theory that deals with light in transit....which is its normal
state.
Don't you think that is rather odd?
>-y
Big Dog
Aug 20, 2012, 6:21:48 PM8/20/12
to
On 8/20/2012 5:16 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> In four hundred years of physics, there have been plenty of theories about
> the creation and absorption of light. ....but until I came along, there has
> not been ONE theory that deals with light in transit....which is its normal
> state.
>
> Don't you think that is rather odd?
I think what's blindingly odd is that when you are unaware of something,
> In four hundred years of physics, there have been plenty of theories about
> the creation and absorption of light. ....but until I came along, there has
> not been ONE theory that deals with light in transit....which is its normal
> state.
>
> Don't you think that is rather odd?
you insist it doesn't exist. That is, if it existed, you would know
about it.
And that supreme omniscience comes without reading a fucking thing, by
deliberate choice. Knowledge of all things comes from just having a
scientific mind, donchaknow?
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 20, 2012, 6:53:52 PM8/20/12
to
'aether')
Mine is clearly the only one.
space...@gmail.com
Aug 20, 2012, 8:07:52 PM8/20/12
to
On Monday, August 20, 2012 3:53:52 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:21:48 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 8/20/2012 5:16 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
What wave is the light particle in?
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:21:48 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 8/20/2012 5:16 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
The magnetic or electric sin wave?
There is a better answer: no particles are necessary
only wave absorption.
Mitchell Raemsch
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 20, 2012, 8:15:33 PM8/20/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:thd5385gbt4ki7idf...@4ax.com...
Yes. You ARE fucking odd.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 20, 2012, 10:59:03 PM8/20/12
to
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 01:15:33 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
Why does the world need psychiatrists when insanity is as obvious as this?
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 21, 2012, 1:54:13 AM8/21/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:cbu538tl387b1c7n4...@4ax.com...
Perhaps if you went to see one your question would be answered,
but psychiatrists are like VW camper van mechanics. They diagnose
your barely functioning 6V brain and scrap it, they cannot repair it.
Big Dog
Aug 21, 2012, 9:33:47 AM8/21/12
to
electrodynamics. Been around for 60 years. Look into it. Really. It's neat.
>
> Mine is clearly the only one.
>
Paul B. Andersen
Aug 21, 2012, 1:36:56 PM8/21/12
to
On 20.08.2012 04:19, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> It's true Poutnik. In spite of three hundred years of discussion by useless
> physics academics, not one of them has been able to come up with a theory of
> traveling light.
>
> Mine is the only one in existence.
On 20.08.2012 00:00, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> It's true Poutnik. In spite of three hundred years of discussion by useless
> physics academics, not one of them has been able to come up with a theory of
> traveling light.
>
> Mine is the only one in existence.
> .....Why does the world need psychiatrists when insanity
> is so obvious?
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 21, 2012, 5:51:53 PM8/21/12
to
Now he can tell us all about those theories which apply to traveling light.
.......Please don't mention the 'aether'.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 21, 2012, 5:53:31 PM8/21/12
to
>> Mine is clearly the only one.
>>
>
>Such is the conclusion of an unread ditz.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 21, 2012, 5:55:08 PM8/21/12
to
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:54:13 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth subhuman
Big Dog
Aug 22, 2012, 10:27:43 AM8/22/12
to
not to read about it. Thus emphasizing my earlier point. Well done, you ass.
>
>>> Mine is clearly the only one.
>>>
>>
>> Such is the conclusion of an unread ditz.
>
> Tell me about all the others....or shut up...
bother with.
Big Dog
Aug 22, 2012, 10:28:32 AM8/22/12
to
commanding "Dance for me!" will get you nothing but an increase in your
dosage and maybe a dousing with the firehose if you act up. Eat your mush.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 22, 2012, 5:56:31 PM8/22/12
to
Your crappy QED does NOT deal with traveling light.
It is all about its beginning and its end.
MY theory describes what happens to isolated light quanta over their long
lifetimes. It is the only theory that does that.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 22, 2012, 5:58:27 PM8/22/12
to
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 22, 2012, 6:13:32 PM8/22/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:kfla385a2lc9h9vmi...@4ax.com...
Send one-liners to the lowest IQ on usenet, Inertial Pig Dog. You
are sure to convince others of your superior intelligence as any
IQ above 10 beats a one digit IQ. I accept your IQ is greater than
Pig Dog's. Pity it is below 20 as you've now demonstrated.
Why can't you learn to just shut the fuck up and killfile the cretin?
(Rhetorical question, you are not that smart.)
Big Dog
Aug 22, 2012, 6:18:53 PM8/22/12
to
On 8/22/2012 4:56 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> You are a clueless moron.
> Your crappy QED does NOT deal with traveling light.
Of COURSE it does. There's a fucking expression for the PROPAGATOR of
>
> You are a clueless moron.
> Your crappy QED does NOT deal with traveling light.
the photon, you ignorant ass. Which you would know, if you even bothered
to read a SINGLE FUCKING THING about QED, rather than just guess.
> It is all about its beginning and its end.
>
> MY theory describes what happens to isolated light quanta over their long
> lifetimes. It is the only theory that does that.
space...@gmail.com
Aug 22, 2012, 8:27:20 PM8/22/12
to
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 3:13:32 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>
> news:kfla385a2lc9h9vmi...@4ax.com...
>
If you want to maintain your IQ you should test it to make sure
> "Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>
> news:kfla385a2lc9h9vmi...@4ax.com...
>
it stays up....
Paul B. Andersen
Aug 23, 2012, 5:19:12 AM8/23/12
to
Here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/bukabmy
--
Paul, not needing psychiatrists to see the insanity
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 23, 2012, 5:53:06 PM8/23/12
to
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:19:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 21.08.2012 23:51, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:36:56 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20.08.2012 04:19, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> It's true Poutnik. In spite of three hundred years of discussion by useless
>>>> physics academics, not one of them has been able to come up with a theory of
>>>> traveling light.
>>>>
>>>> Mine is the only one in existence.
>>>
>>> On 20.08.2012 00:00, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> .....Why does the world need psychiatrists when insanity
>>>> is so obvious?
>>
>> Good heavens! He's back!
>>
>> Now he can tell us all about those theories which apply to traveling light.
>>
>> .......Please don't mention the 'aether'.
>>
>
>There is but one theory which apply to travelling light.
>Here it is:
>http://tinyurl.com/bukabmy
That's right. It 's mine.
>On 21.08.2012 23:51, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:36:56 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20.08.2012 04:19, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> It's true Poutnik. In spite of three hundred years of discussion by useless
>>>> physics academics, not one of them has been able to come up with a theory of
>>>> traveling light.
>>>>
>>>> Mine is the only one in existence.
>>>
>>> On 20.08.2012 00:00, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> .....Why does the world need psychiatrists when insanity
>>>> is so obvious?
>>
>> Good heavens! He's back!
>>
>> Now he can tell us all about those theories which apply to traveling light.
>>
>> .......Please don't mention the 'aether'.
>>
>
>There is but one theory which apply to travelling light.
>Here it is:
>http://tinyurl.com/bukabmy
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 23, 2012, 5:59:20 PM8/23/12
to
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:13:32 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
a 'poor clueless bastard' might get the message across to the loudmouth
fool.
<aug...@2012.org> wrote:
>"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>news:kfla385a2lc9h9vmi...@4ax.com...
>
>On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:27:43 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Go fuck yourself with your own boondoggle. You're too blindingly odd to
>>bother with.
>
>...poor clueless bastard!
>
>===================================================
>Send one-liners to the lowest IQ on usenet, Inertial Pig Dog. You
>are sure to convince others of your superior intelligence as any
>IQ above 10 beats a one digit IQ. I accept your IQ is greater than
>Pig Dog's. Pity it is below 20 as you've now demonstrated.
>Why can't you learn to just shut the fuck up and killfile the cretin?
I feel genuinely sorry for the poor deluded girl. I assumed that calling her
>"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>news:kfla385a2lc9h9vmi...@4ax.com...
>
>On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:27:43 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Go fuck yourself with your own boondoggle. You're too blindingly odd to
>>bother with.
>
>...poor clueless bastard!
>
>===================================================
>Send one-liners to the lowest IQ on usenet, Inertial Pig Dog. You
>are sure to convince others of your superior intelligence as any
>IQ above 10 beats a one digit IQ. I accept your IQ is greater than
>Pig Dog's. Pity it is below 20 as you've now demonstrated.
>Why can't you learn to just shut the fuck up and killfile the cretin?
a 'poor clueless bastard' might get the message across to the loudmouth
fool.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 23, 2012, 6:16:07 PM8/23/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:dm9d389h3r9nbkq68...@4ax.com...
I though she was "little Eric", your pet chimpanzee, Daisy.
My mistake.
space...@gmail.com
Aug 23, 2012, 6:26:00 PM8/23/12
to
On Saturday, August 18, 2012 4:13:13 PM UTC-7, Androcles wrote:
> "Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>
> news:8cht281bulh8sp1fk...@4ax.com...
> "Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>
>
>
Which wave is the quantum in?
They go into the atom and are stored.
But where do they all go when you shut off the light?
Ambient heat...
Mitchell Raemsch
> Consider a photon emitted during the energy transition of an electron in a
>
> remote H atom. What subsequently happens to it?
>
>
>
> Now before any of you start ranting and raving,
>
>
> Wilson will begin ranting and raving.
>
> (Ranting and raving snipped. )
>
> Energy is conserved. That's what happens to it.
Paul B. Andersen
Aug 24, 2012, 1:40:37 PM8/24/12
to
But isn't it a bit strange that GR, which according to the fully
qualified experimental physicist Doctor Ralph Rabbidge doesn't
apply to travelling light, can correctly predict how travelling
light will be bent by massive objects, while the only theory
which apply to travelling light can't?
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 24, 2012, 2:01:43 PM8/24/12
to
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message news:k18eap$bja$1...@news.albasani.net...
===============================================
Must be the Anders Breivik defence.
Like Tusseladd he is not insane, accepts the verdict
but does not recognise the court.
How much does the Moon bend sunlight, Tusseladd?
Zero?
Quite.
Clever GR.
Must be the Anders Breivik defence.
Like Tusseladd he is not insane, accepts the verdict
but does not recognise the court.
How much does the Moon bend sunlight, Tusseladd?
Zero?
Quite.
Clever GR.
Paul B. Andersen
Aug 24, 2012, 3:00:23 PM8/24/12
to
On 24.08.2012 20:01, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> How much does the Moon bend sunlight, Tusseladd?
A light beam grazing the Moon will be bent 2.58*10^-5 arcseconds
> How much does the Moon bend sunlight, Tusseladd?
> Zero?
Not..
> Quite.
> Clever GR.
Indeed.
>
> -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 24, 2012, 4:41:04 PM8/24/12
to
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message news:k18j0b$l3r$1...@news.albasani.net...
On 24.08.2012 20:01, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> How much does the Moon bend sunlight, Tusseladd?
A light beam grazing the Moon will be bent 2.58*10^-5 arcseconds
=========================================================
Nope, it's 1.29*10^-5 arc seconds, GR is wrong and you are a proven
idiot, Porkie Breivik Andersen.
-- Lord Androcles, God given 1.29*10^-5 th Earl of Medway
On 24.08.2012 20:01, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> How much does the Moon bend sunlight, Tusseladd?
A light beam grazing the Moon will be bent 2.58*10^-5 arcseconds
Nope, it's 1.29*10^-5 arc seconds, GR is wrong and you are a proven
idiot, Porkie Breivik Andersen.
-- Lord Androcles, God given 1.29*10^-5 th Earl of Medway
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 24, 2012, 6:33:21 PM8/24/12
to
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:40:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
My theory applies to the bending of light by gravity.....The Pound Rebka
experiment supports it....but that is a minor consideration. .
The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured. The Eddington
experiment was a complete farce with not a hope in hell of measuring
anything useful.
What is more, my theory speculates that for light, gravitational mass might
not equal inertial mass, with the consequence that 'a' varies as KGM, where
K is not necessarily equal to unity.
experiment supports it....but that is a minor consideration. .
The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured. The Eddington
experiment was a complete farce with not a hope in hell of measuring
anything useful.
What is more, my theory speculates that for light, gravitational mass might
not equal inertial mass, with the consequence that 'a' varies as KGM, where
K is not necessarily equal to unity.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 24, 2012, 6:35:14 PM8/24/12
to
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:01:43 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
If he had shot 70 in a mosque, he would have been a national hero.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 24, 2012, 6:36:28 PM8/24/12
to
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 21:00:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 24.08.2012 20:01, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
>> How much does the Moon bend sunlight, Tusseladd?
>
>A light beam grazing the Moon will be bent 2.58*10^-5 arcseconds
Of course that is the figure calculated from GR, not a measured one.
<som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 24.08.2012 20:01, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
>> How much does the Moon bend sunlight, Tusseladd?
>
>A light beam grazing the Moon will be bent 2.58*10^-5 arcseconds
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 24, 2012, 6:46:32 PM8/24/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:2ovf38919kstht6ns...@4ax.com...
Fucking relativists, they are all wankers with mights and might nots and
could bes and not necessarily sane.
What is more, you are (in fact actually) a fuckwit just like Tusseladd.
STEVEN CARLIP
Aug 24, 2012, 8:20:03 PM8/24/12
to
In article <2ovf38919kstht6ns...@4ax.com>,
Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
Measurement to .2%
Shapiro, S.S., Davis, J.L., Lebach, D.E., and Gregory, J.S.,
"Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves using
geodetic very-long-baseline interferometry data, 1979-1999", Phys. Rev.
Lett., 92, 121101, (2004).
Measurement to .04%
Froeschle, M., Mignard, F., and Arenou, F., "Determination of the PPN
parameter ? with the Hipparcos data", in Proceedings from the Hipparcos
Venice '97 Symposium, Proceedings of the symposium held on 13-16 May
1997, (ESA, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 1997).
Measurement to .3%
Fomalont, E., Kopeikin, S., Lanyi, G., and Benson, J., "Progress in
Measurements of the Gravitational Bending of Radio Waves Using the
VLBA", Astrophys. J. 699, 1395 (2009).
Measurement to .06%.
Steve Carlip
..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> My theory applies to the bending of light by gravity.....The Pound Rebka
> experiment supports it....but that is a minor consideration. .
> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
> My theory applies to the bending of light by gravity.....The Pound Rebka
> experiment supports it....but that is a minor consideration. .
> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
Measurement to .2%
Shapiro, S.S., Davis, J.L., Lebach, D.E., and Gregory, J.S.,
"Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves using
geodetic very-long-baseline interferometry data, 1979-1999", Phys. Rev.
Lett., 92, 121101, (2004).
Measurement to .04%
Froeschle, M., Mignard, F., and Arenou, F., "Determination of the PPN
parameter ? with the Hipparcos data", in Proceedings from the Hipparcos
Venice '97 Symposium, Proceedings of the symposium held on 13-16 May
1997, (ESA, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 1997).
Measurement to .3%
Fomalont, E., Kopeikin, S., Lanyi, G., and Benson, J., "Progress in
Measurements of the Gravitational Bending of Radio Waves Using the
VLBA", Astrophys. J. 699, 1395 (2009).
Measurement to .06%.
Steve Carlip
Paul B. Andersen
Aug 25, 2012, 8:46:48 AM8/25/12
to
On 25.08.2012 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
Ralph, you know that the bending of light has been very precisely
> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
measured by a number of experiments, see Carlip's posting.
You have been told about these measurements several times before,
and there is no way you can claim ignorance of them.
http://tinyurl.com/d4p7olb
http://tinyurl.com/cv7kreq
http://tinyurl.com/d85cqub
So your claim is a deliberate lie.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 25, 2012, 9:32:35 AM8/25/12
to
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message news:k1ahft$6pv$1...@news.albasani.net...
Taking aberration into account, taking experimenter bias into account,
(The only ones interested in the bending of light are GR fanatics)
taking the fact that you are a proven liar into account,
taking you citing your own posts into account,
taking Carlip's bias into account,
you have produced very precisely zilch by way of actual evidence
and a number of hand-waving claims of the existence of a vague
number of so-called "measurements" which you know absolutely
NOTHING about.
Porkie Breivik Andersen is, as we know, dishonest through and through.
(The only ones interested in the bending of light are GR fanatics)
taking the fact that you are a proven liar into account,
taking you citing your own posts into account,
taking Carlip's bias into account,
you have produced very precisely zilch by way of actual evidence
and a number of hand-waving claims of the existence of a vague
number of so-called "measurements" which you know absolutely
NOTHING about.
Porkie Breivik Andersen is, as we know, dishonest through and through.
Big Dog
Aug 25, 2012, 11:07:42 AM8/25/12
to
- (When challenged on that) Declare the principle counter to observation.
- (When challenged on that) Declare that the principle has never been
observationally tested.
- (When challenged on that) Declare that the observational tests cannot
be believed.
- (When challenged on that) Declare the principle counter to observation.
- (When challenged on that) Declare that the principle has never been
observationally tested.
- (When challenged on that) Declare that the observational tests cannot
be believed.- (When challenged on that) Declare the principle counter to
observation.
- (When challenged on that) Declare that the principle has never been
observationally tested.
- (When challenged on that) Declare that the observational tests cannot
be believed.- (When challenged on that) Declare the principle counter to
observation.
- (When challenged on that) Declare that the principle has never been
observationally tested.
- (When challenged on that) Declare that the observational tests cannot
be believed.- (When challenged on that) Declare the principle counter to
observation.
- (When challenged on that) Declare that the principle has never been
observationally tested.
- (When challenged on that) Declare that the observational tests cannot
be believed.
Rabbidge is like the boxer who believes that if he is still standing at
the end of the round when the bell rings, then he has won.
Big Dog
Aug 25, 2012, 11:12:18 AM8/25/12
to
good excuses not to believe you, and you will never make me believe you.
Therefore what you say is wrong."
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 25, 2012, 6:41:40 PM8/25/12
to
travels at c.
>
>Steve Carlip
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 25, 2012, 6:43:41 PM8/25/12
to
there is no reason to believe that photon 'gravitational mass' is identical
to photon 'inertial mass'.
Can you or Carlip prove that it is?
Paul B. Andersen
Aug 26, 2012, 5:11:51 PM8/26/12
to
"The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured."
Which is a deliberate lie because you know that the bending
of light has been measured with high precision in a number
of experiments.
Why do you keep lying so obviously, Ralph?
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 26, 2012, 6:19:45 PM8/26/12
to
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:11:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>The issue is that you, Henry Wilson DSc, claimed:
>Which is a deliberate lie because you know that the bending
>of light has been measured with high precision in a number
>of experiments.
It hasn't.
>Why do you keep lying so obviously, Henry?
Why don't you patent your method of seeing around corners with your
spinning laser 'curved light' principle'?
I'm sure some idiot will buy it.
It works with a garden hose too....
<som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 26.08.2012 00:43, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:46:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25.08.2012 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>
>>> Henry , you know that the bending of light has been very precisely
>On 26.08.2012 00:43, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:46:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25.08.2012 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>
>>> measured by a number of experiments, see Carlip's posting.
>>> You have been told about these measurements several times before,
>>> and there is no way you can claim ignorance of them.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4p7olb
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cv7kreq
>>> http://tinyurl.com/d85cqub
>>>
>>> So your claim is a deliberate lie.
>>
>> We know that light is bent by gravity just like anything else. However,
>> there is no reason to believe that photon 'gravitational mass' is identical
>> to photon 'inertial mass'.
>>
>> Can you or Carlip prove that it is?
CAN YOU PROVE THAT IT IS?
>>> You have been told about these measurements several times before,
>>> and there is no way you can claim ignorance of them.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4p7olb
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cv7kreq
>>> http://tinyurl.com/d85cqub
>>>
>>> So your claim is a deliberate lie.
>>
>> We know that light is bent by gravity just like anything else. However,
>> there is no reason to believe that photon 'gravitational mass' is identical
>> to photon 'inertial mass'.
>>
>> Can you or Carlip prove that it is?
>The issue is that you, Henry Wilson DSc, claimed:
>"The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured."
It hasn't.
>Which is a deliberate lie because you know that the bending
>of light has been measured with high precision in a number
>of experiments.
>Why do you keep lying so obviously, Henry?
Why don't you patent your method of seeing around corners with your
spinning laser 'curved light' principle'?
I'm sure some idiot will buy it.
It works with a garden hose too....
Paul B. Andersen
Aug 26, 2012, 7:12:17 PM8/26/12
to
On 27.08.2012 00:19, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:11:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>> On 26.08.2012 00:43, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:46:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25.08.2012 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph , you know that the bending of light has been very precisely
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:11:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>> On 26.08.2012 00:43, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:46:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25.08.2012 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>
>>>> measured by a number of experiments, see Carlip's posting.
>>>> You have been told about these measurements several times before,
>>>> and there is no way you can claim ignorance of them.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4p7olb
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cv7kreq
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d85cqub
>>>>
>>>> So your claim is a deliberate lie.
>>>
>>> We know that light is bent by gravity just like anything else. However,
>>> there is no reason to believe that photon 'gravitational mass' is identical
>>> to photon 'inertial mass'.
>>>
>>> Can you or Carlip prove that it is?
>
> CAN YOU PROVE THAT IT IS?
Desperate to evade the issue, Ralph?
>>>> You have been told about these measurements several times before,
>>>> and there is no way you can claim ignorance of them.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4p7olb
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cv7kreq
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d85cqub
>>>>
>>>> So your claim is a deliberate lie.
>>>
>>> We know that light is bent by gravity just like anything else. However,
>>> there is no reason to believe that photon 'gravitational mass' is identical
>>> to photon 'inertial mass'.
>>>
>>> Can you or Carlip prove that it is?
>
> CAN YOU PROVE THAT IT IS?
>> The issue is that you, Ralph Rabbidge, claimed:
>> "The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured."
>
> It hasn't.
Maybe not acurately, but very accurately.
>
> It hasn't.
>> Which is a deliberate lie because you know that the bending
>> of light has been measured with high precision in a number
>> of experiments.
>
> It hasn't.
>> Why do you keep lying so obviously, Ralph?
>
> Why don't you patent your method of seeing around corners with your
> spinning laser 'curved light' principle'?
>
> I'm sure some idiot will buy it.
>
> It works with a garden hose too....
No answer, Ralph?
> Why don't you patent your method of seeing around corners with your
> spinning laser 'curved light' principle'?
>
> I'm sure some idiot will buy it.
>
> It works with a garden hose too....
Why ARE you lying so stupidly, Ralph?
This is indeed quite funny.
You keep denying what everybody including you know is true,
namely that the bending of light has been measured with high
precision in a number of experiments.
But I have had my fun for now.
Your lies are entertaining, but this one is getting boring.
I will get back when you invent a new one.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 26, 2012, 9:27:18 PM8/26/12
to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:12:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
>>> The issue is that you, Henry Wilson DSc, claimed:
>>> Which is a deliberate lie because you know that the bending
>>> of light has been measured with high precision in a number
>>> of experiments.
>>
>> It hasn't.
>
>http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsArgument.pdf
I don't waste time on your references any more.
>>> Why do you keep lying so obviously, Henry?
>
>Why ARE you lying so stupidly, Henry?
would expect you to be an authority on this subject and provide some actual
figures.
Obviously you will not do that because the only ones available prove
Einstein's silly theory wrong.
>But I have had my fun for now.
>Your lies are entertaining, but this one is getting boring.
>I will get back when you invent a new one.
Paul, you really should patent your 'curved light' invention before somebody
else grabs it!
All you need is a rapidly spinning laser....and voila! .....it is ideal for
sending TV and phone signals into deep valleys.
<som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 27.08.2012 00:19, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:11:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So your claim is a deliberate lie.
>>>>
>>>> We know that light is bent by gravity just like anything else. However,
>>>> there is no reason to believe that photon 'gravitational mass' is identical
>>>> to photon 'inertial mass'.
>>>>
>>>> Can you or Carlip prove that it is?
>>
>> CAN YOU PROVE THAT IT IS?
>
>Desperate to evade the issue, Henry?
>On 27.08.2012 00:19, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:11:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So your claim is a deliberate lie.
>>>>
>>>> We know that light is bent by gravity just like anything else. However,
>>>> there is no reason to believe that photon 'gravitational mass' is identical
>>>> to photon 'inertial mass'.
>>>>
>>>> Can you or Carlip prove that it is?
>>
>> CAN YOU PROVE THAT IT IS?
>
>
>>> The issue is that you, Henry Wilson DSc, claimed:
>>> "The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured."
>>
>> It hasn't.
>
>Maybe not acurately, but very accurately.
What was the reference object?
>>
>> It hasn't.
>
>Maybe not acurately, but very accurately.
>>> Which is a deliberate lie because you know that the bending
>>> of light has been measured with high precision in a number
>>> of experiments.
>>
>> It hasn't.
>
>http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsArgument.pdf
>>> Why do you keep lying so obviously, Henry?
>>
>> Why don't you patent your method of seeing around corners with your
>> spinning laser 'curved light' principle'?
>>
>> I'm sure some idiot will buy it.
>>
>> It works with a garden hose too....
>
>No answer, Henry?
>> Why don't you patent your method of seeing around corners with your
>> spinning laser 'curved light' principle'?
>>
>> I'm sure some idiot will buy it.
>>
>> It works with a garden hose too....
>
>
>Why ARE you lying so stupidly, Henry?
>
>This is indeed quite funny.
>You keep denying what everybody including you know is true,
>namely that the bending of light has been measured with high
>precision in a number of experiments.
Since YOU are the expert at bending light and in seeing around corners, one
>This is indeed quite funny.
>You keep denying what everybody including you know is true,
>namely that the bending of light has been measured with high
>precision in a number of experiments.
would expect you to be an authority on this subject and provide some actual
figures.
Obviously you will not do that because the only ones available prove
Einstein's silly theory wrong.
>But I have had my fun for now.
>Your lies are entertaining, but this one is getting boring.
>I will get back when you invent a new one.
else grabs it!
All you need is a rapidly spinning laser....and voila! .....it is ideal for
sending TV and phone signals into deep valleys.
John Gogo
Aug 26, 2012, 9:36:10 PM8/26/12
to
deviation from a straight line. But, what does that really mean?
John Gogo
Aug 26, 2012, 10:04:43 PM8/26/12
to
John Gogo
Aug 26, 2012, 10:10:25 PM8/26/12
to
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 26, 2012, 10:22:09 PM8/26/12
to
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:10:25 -0700 (PDT), John Gogo <jfgo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
No. It means that light is affected by gravity just like anything else.
wrote:
John Gogo
Aug 26, 2012, 10:29:58 PM8/26/12
to
On Aug 26, 9:22 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:10:25 -0700 (PDT), John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com>
Just like a mirage? Same physics.
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:10:25 -0700 (PDT), John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com>
John Gogo
Aug 26, 2012, 10:48:30 PM8/26/12
to
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 27, 2012, 5:54:43 AM8/27/12
to
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:29:58 -0700 (PDT), John Gogo <jfgo...@yahoo.com>
Silly statement...feel embarassed pleased....
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 27, 2012, 5:59:52 AM8/27/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:6ugm38ljcrel4ihbe...@4ax.com...
He's asking you a question. You are the drunken sheepshagger that should
feel embarrassed by your answer.
Big Dog
Aug 27, 2012, 10:46:11 AM8/27/12
to
On 8/25/2012 5:41 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:20:03 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <2ovf38919kstht6ns...@4ax.com>,
>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>>
>>> My theory applies to the bending of light by gravity.....The Pound Rebka
>>> experiment supports it....but that is a minor consideration. .
>>
>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>
>> Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
>> Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
>> Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
>> Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
>>
>> Measurement to .2%
[etc]
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:20:03 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <2ovf38919kstht6ns...@4ax.com>,
>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>>
>>> My theory applies to the bending of light by gravity.....The Pound Rebka
>>> experiment supports it....but that is a minor consideration. .
>>
>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>
>> Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
>> Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
>> Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
>> Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
>>
>> Measurement to .2%
> ....Lots of vague assumptions....particularly the one that says light always
> travels at c.
>
will never make me give them up."
STEVEN CARLIP
Aug 27, 2012, 4:45:08 PM8/27/12
to
In article <r3li38ht4q54jf516...@4ax.com>,
Nope. Read the articles -- I'll bet you can't find that assumption
anywhere. These are not theoretical calculations, they're real
measurements.
Steve Carlip
anywhere. These are not theoretical calculations, they're real
measurements.
Steve Carlip
Big Dog
Aug 27, 2012, 4:47:20 PM8/27/12
to
though he hasn't read any of them. Rabbidge has several excellent
excuses for fabricating reasons not to do anything which would threaten
his fabrications.
Paul B. Andersen
Aug 27, 2012, 5:26:49 PM8/27/12
to
On 27.08.2012 03:27, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>> On 25.08.2012 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>> On 25.08.2012 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph, you know that the bending of light has been very precisely
>>>>>
>>>>> measured by a number of experiments, see Carlip's posting.
>>>>> You have been told about these measurements several times before,
>>>>> and there is no way you can claim ignorance of them.
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4p7olb
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cv7kreq
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d85cqub
>>>>>
>>>>> You have been told about these measurements several times before,
>>>>> and there is no way you can claim ignorance of them.
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4p7olb
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cv7kreq
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d85cqub
>>>>>
>>>>> So your claim is a deliberate lie.
Width pointers to a lot of "actual figures" on bending of light.
> Since YOU are the expert at bending light and in seeing around corners, one
> would expect you to be an authority on this subject and provide some actual
> figures.
remember what he read two days ago.
Ralph, you are excused.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 27, 2012, 5:31:37 PM8/27/12
to
"STEVEN CARLIP" wrote in message
news:carlip-0EFBE5....@news.eternal-september.org...
================================
Yep. Produce the evidence --
news:carlip-0EFBE5....@news.eternal-september.org...
Yep. Produce the evidence --
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 27, 2012, 5:44:10 PM8/27/12
to
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message news:k1gomq$9dd$1...@news.albasani.net...
=====================================
Agreed...
Agreed...
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 27, 2012, 6:39:17 PM8/27/12
to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:45:08 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
In this paper, I counted no fewer than 23 'assumptions', 28 'corrections',
13 'estimates' and numerous other 'guesses'.
These papers reveal the depth of desperation of Einstein worshippers.
The perpetrators knew the answer they wanted beforehand and merely adjusted
all their fifty or so 'assumptions' to produce it.
Physics in the US is indeed in a sad state.
>> >
>> >Measurement to .2%
>> >
>> >Shapiro, S.S., Davis, J.L., Lebach, D.E., and Gregory, J.S.,
>> >"Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves using
>> >geodetic very-long-baseline interferometry data, 1979-1999", Phys. Rev.
>> >Lett., 92, 121101, (2004).
>> >
>> >Measurement to .04%
>> >
>> >Froeschle, M., Mignard, F., and Arenou, F., "Determination of the PPN
>> >parameter ? with the Hipparcos data", in Proceedings from the Hipparcos
>> >Venice '97 Symposium, Proceedings of the symposium held on 13-16 May
>> >1997, (ESA, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 1997).
>> >
>> >Measurement to .3%
>> >
>> >Fomalont, E., Kopeikin, S., Lanyi, G., and Benson, J., "Progress in
>> >Measurements of the Gravitational Bending of Radio Waves Using the
>> >VLBA", Astrophys. J. 699, 1395 (2009).
>> >
>> >Measurement to .06%.
>
>> ....Lots of vague assumptions....particularly the one that says light always
>> travels at c.
>
>Nope. Read the articles -- I'll bet you can't find that assumption
>anywhere. These are not theoretical calculations, they're real
>measurements.
The articles are pathetic jokes.
>Steve Carlip
<car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>In article <r3li38ht4q54jf516...@4ax.com>,
> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:20:03 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
>> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <2ovf38919kstht6ns...@4ax.com>,
>> > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>> >
>> >> My theory applies to the bending of light by gravity.....The Pound Rebka
>> >> experiment supports it....but that is a minor consideration. .
>> >
>> >> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>> >
>> >Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
>> >Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
>> >Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
>> >Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
You can't be serious.
>In article <r3li38ht4q54jf516...@4ax.com>,
> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:20:03 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
>> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <2ovf38919kstht6ns...@4ax.com>,
>> > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>> >
>> >> My theory applies to the bending of light by gravity.....The Pound Rebka
>> >> experiment supports it....but that is a minor consideration. .
>> >
>> >> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>> >
>> >Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
>> >Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
>> >Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
>> >Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
In this paper, I counted no fewer than 23 'assumptions', 28 'corrections',
13 'estimates' and numerous other 'guesses'.
These papers reveal the depth of desperation of Einstein worshippers.
The perpetrators knew the answer they wanted beforehand and merely adjusted
all their fifty or so 'assumptions' to produce it.
Physics in the US is indeed in a sad state.
>> >
>> >Measurement to .2%
>> >
>> >Shapiro, S.S., Davis, J.L., Lebach, D.E., and Gregory, J.S.,
>> >"Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves using
>> >geodetic very-long-baseline interferometry data, 1979-1999", Phys. Rev.
>> >Lett., 92, 121101, (2004).
>> >
>> >Measurement to .04%
>> >
>> >Froeschle, M., Mignard, F., and Arenou, F., "Determination of the PPN
>> >parameter ? with the Hipparcos data", in Proceedings from the Hipparcos
>> >Venice '97 Symposium, Proceedings of the symposium held on 13-16 May
>> >1997, (ESA, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 1997).
>> >
>> >Measurement to .3%
>> >
>> >Fomalont, E., Kopeikin, S., Lanyi, G., and Benson, J., "Progress in
>> >Measurements of the Gravitational Bending of Radio Waves Using the
>> >VLBA", Astrophys. J. 699, 1395 (2009).
>> >
>> >Measurement to .06%.
>
>> ....Lots of vague assumptions....particularly the one that says light always
>> travels at c.
>
>Nope. Read the articles -- I'll bet you can't find that assumption
>anywhere. These are not theoretical calculations, they're real
>measurements.
>Steve Carlip
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 27, 2012, 6:44:52 PM8/27/12
to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 23:26:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 27.08.2012 03:27, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>>> On 25.08.2012 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph, you know that the bending of light has been very precisely
>>>>>> measured by a number of experiments, see Carlip's posting.
>>>>>> You have been told about these measurements several times before,
>>>>>> and there is no way you can claim ignorance of them.
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4p7olb
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cv7kreq
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d85cqub
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So your claim is a deliberate lie.
>
>Width pointers to a lot of "actual figures" on bending of light.
.....they are really funny....I have been laughing at them.
<som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 27.08.2012 03:27, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>>> On 25.08.2012 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph, you know that the bending of light has been very precisely
>>>>>> measured by a number of experiments, see Carlip's posting.
>>>>>> You have been told about these measurements several times before,
>>>>>> and there is no way you can claim ignorance of them.
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4p7olb
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cv7kreq
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d85cqub
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So your claim is a deliberate lie.
>
>Width pointers to a lot of "actual figures" on bending of light.
>> Since YOU are the expert at bending light and in seeing around corners, one
>> would expect you to be an authority on this subject and provide some actual
>> figures.
>
>One can probably not expect that a retarded person should
>remember what he read two days ago.
their belief system.
>Henry, you are excused.
Big Dog
Aug 27, 2012, 6:45:03 PM8/27/12
to
On 8/27/2012 5:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:45:08 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <r3li38ht4q54jf516...@4ax.com>,
>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:20:03 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
>>> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <2ovf38919kstht6ns...@4ax.com>,
>>>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My theory applies to the bending of light by gravity.....The Pound Rebka
>>>>> experiment supports it....but that is a minor consideration. .
>>>>
>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>
>>>> Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
>>>> Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
>>>> Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
>>>> Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
>
> You can't be serious.
>
> In this paper, I counted no fewer than 23 'assumptions', 28 'corrections',
> 13 'estimates' and numerous other 'guesses'.
List them.
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:45:08 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <r3li38ht4q54jf516...@4ax.com>,
>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:20:03 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
>>> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <2ovf38919kstht6ns...@4ax.com>,
>>>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My theory applies to the bending of light by gravity.....The Pound Rebka
>>>>> experiment supports it....but that is a minor consideration. .
>>>>
>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>
>>>> Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
>>>> Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
>>>> Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
>>>> Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
>
> You can't be serious.
>
> In this paper, I counted no fewer than 23 'assumptions', 28 'corrections',
> 13 'estimates' and numerous other 'guesses'.
>
> These papers reveal the depth of desperation of Einstein worshippers.
>
> The perpetrators knew the answer they wanted beforehand and merely adjusted
> all their fifty or so 'assumptions' to produce it.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 27, 2012, 6:46:32 PM8/27/12
to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:59:52 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
sometimes.
<aug...@2012.org> wrote:
>"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>news:6ugm38ljcrel4ihbe...@4ax.com...
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>news:6ugm38ljcrel4ihbe...@4ax.com...
>
>>> >> > The only reason it bends is because we have finally measured the
>>> >> > deviation from a straight line. But, what does that really mean?
>>>
>>> >> Does this reveal a real fundamental aspect of nature?
>>>
>>> >Does this qualify to be a law?
>>>
>>> No. It means that light is affected by gravity just like anything else.
>>
>>Just like a mirage? Same physics.
>
>Silly statement...feel embarassed pleased....
>===========================================
>He's asking you a question. You are the drunken sheepshagger that should
>feel embarrassed by your answer.
Mirages are caused by gravity you silly old pom. You're as bad as pigdog
>>> >> > deviation from a straight line. But, what does that really mean?
>>>
>>> >> Does this reveal a real fundamental aspect of nature?
>>>
>>> >Does this qualify to be a law?
>>>
>>> No. It means that light is affected by gravity just like anything else.
>>
>>Just like a mirage? Same physics.
>
>Silly statement...feel embarassed pleased....
>===========================================
>He's asking you a question. You are the drunken sheepshagger that should
>feel embarrassed by your answer.
sometimes.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 28, 2012, 2:22:02 AM8/28/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:tctn389fhtpngobst...@4ax.com...
news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 28, 2012, 2:31:40 AM8/28/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:7qtn38hr0osq2g3ei...@4ax.com...
Y.y.Porat
Aug 28, 2012, 3:35:15 AM8/28/12
to
On Monday, August 20, 2012 12:57:26 AM UTC+3, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:28:26 -0700 (PDT), "Y.y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Consider a photon emitted during the energy transition of an electron in a
>
> >>
>
> >> remote H atom. What subsequently happens to it?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Now before any of you start ranting and raving,
>
> >>
>
> >> ====
>
> >>
>
> >> Wilson will begin ranting and raving.
>
> >>
>
> >> (Ranting and raving snipped. )
>
> >>
>
> >> Energy is conserved. That's what happens to it.
>
> >notonly energy is consrved
>
> >one of the great disaters that happpend to 'Modern physics'
>
> >for too many decades is the idiotcmoronic idea
>
> >that
>
> >mass is not conserved !!
>
> >
>
> >mass is conserved exactly as energy is conserved
>
> >because
>
> >energy is mass in movement
>
> >
>
> >thephootn has mass - the only mass
>
> >if not enough
>
> >i proved and found the smallest pjoton mass to be
>
> >about
>
> >
>
> >exp -90 KILOGRAMS !!
>
> >got it idiot parrots ??
>
> >
>
> >KILOGRAMS OF MASS - THE ONLY MASS
>
> >NOT RELATIVISTIC AND NOR SCHMELATIVISTIC !!!
>
> >2
>
> >NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
>
> >now idiots once you get it
>
> >you willnot even start with the idiotic idea
>
> >of Higs Bosons!
>
> >because
>
> >
>
> >if energy has mass
>
> >who needs the F=en Higgs togive mass to anything
>
> >wqhile
>
> >energy is doing it simply and easyly !!
>
> >
>
> >as for now
>
> >physics is wasting billions of $
>
> >of nonsense crcked physics
>
> >without blinking an eye
>
> >
>
> >it is a crime against mankind that suffers
>
> >economic crisis
>
> >and does not need more shameless croocks
>
> >to waist its scares resources on idiotic
>
> >moronic ideas
>
> >that are dead at arrival !!!
>
>
>
> Dead right Porat!
>
>
>
> Physics has been hijacked by Einsteinian morons...
> -------------------
Tank you Henry !!
anyway
lets be more accurate
i accept SR !!
***i do not accept GR !** with its 'curved soace etc
because space is nothing
by definition
if something curs there is is spacial massive -very small mass )
basic particles
that move in a curved pass
2
Enstein didnt say that mass is not coserved
while the contrary
his famous
E=m c^2
is the best prve that mass is as well conserved !!
because :
if energy is conserved (constant )and i hope you accept that)
AND c IS A CONSTANT
THAN m is as well a constant !!
and a constant is as we know is
invariable
and invariable in plain English
is another word and concept of
CONSERVED !!!
just as simple as that
so lease dont say that
Einstein denied
CONSERVATION OF MASS !!
you get is as i showed above
by a trivial analysis of HIS *** E= m c ^2
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:28:26 -0700 (PDT), "Y.y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sunday, August 19, 2012 2:13:13 AM UTC+3, Androcles wrote:
>
> >> "Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>
> >>
>
> >> news:8cht281bulh8sp1fk...@4ax.com...
>
>
> >On Sunday, August 19, 2012 2:13:13 AM UTC+3, Androcles wrote:
>
> >> "Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
>
> >>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Consider a photon emitted during the energy transition of an electron in a
>
> >>
>
> >> remote H atom. What subsequently happens to it?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Now before any of you start ranting and raving,
>
> >>
>
> >> ====
>
> >>
>
> >> Wilson will begin ranting and raving.
>
> >>
>
> >> (Ranting and raving snipped. )
>
> >>
>
> >> Energy is conserved. That's what happens to it.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
>
> >
>
> >--------------------
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
>
> >
>
>
> >notonly energy is consrved
>
> >one of the great disaters that happpend to 'Modern physics'
>
> >for too many decades is the idiotcmoronic idea
>
> >that
>
> >mass is not conserved !!
>
> >
>
> >mass is conserved exactly as energy is conserved
>
> >because
>
> >energy is mass in movement
>
> >
>
> >thephootn has mass - the only mass
>
> >if not enough
>
> >i proved and found the smallest pjoton mass to be
>
> >about
>
> >
>
> >exp -90 KILOGRAMS !!
>
> >got it idiot parrots ??
>
> >
>
> >KILOGRAMS OF MASS - THE ONLY MASS
>
> >NOT RELATIVISTIC AND NOR SCHMELATIVISTIC !!!
>
> >2
>
> >NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
>
> >now idiots once you get it
>
> >you willnot even start with the idiotic idea
>
> >of Higs Bosons!
>
> >because
>
> >
>
> >if energy has mass
>
> >who needs the F=en Higgs togive mass to anything
>
> >wqhile
>
> >energy is doing it simply and easyly !!
>
> >
>
> >as for now
>
> >physics is wasting billions of $
>
> >of nonsense crcked physics
>
> >without blinking an eye
>
> >
>
> >it is a crime against mankind that suffers
>
> >economic crisis
>
> >and does not need more shameless croocks
>
> >to waist its scares resources on idiotic
>
> >moronic ideas
>
> >that are dead at arrival !!!
>
>
>
> Dead right Porat!
>
>
>
> Physics has been hijacked by Einsteinian morons...
> -------------------
Tank you Henry !!
anyway
lets be more accurate
i accept SR !!
***i do not accept GR !** with its 'curved soace etc
because space is nothing
by definition
if something curs there is is spacial massive -very small mass )
basic particles
that move in a curved pass
2
Enstein didnt say that mass is not coserved
while the contrary
his famous
E=m c^2
is the best prve that mass is as well conserved !!
because :
if energy is conserved (constant )and i hope you accept that)
AND c IS A CONSTANT
THAN m is as well a constant !!
and a constant is as we know is
invariable
and invariable in plain English
is another word and concept of
CONSERVED !!!
just as simple as that
so lease dont say that
Einstein denied
CONSERVATION OF MASS !!
you get is as i showed above
by a trivial analysis of HIS *** E= m c ^2
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
Paul B. Andersen
Aug 28, 2012, 7:34:54 AM8/28/12
to
On 28.08.2012 00:39, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:45:08 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <r3li38ht4q54jf516...@4ax.com>,
>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:20:03 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
>>> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <2ovf38919kstht6ns...@4ax.com>,
>>>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My theory applies to the bending of light by gravity.....The Pound Rebka
>>>>> experiment supports it....but that is a minor consideration. .
>>>>
>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>
>>>> Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
>>>> Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
>>>> Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
>>>> Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
>
> You can't be serious.
>
> In this paper, I counted no fewer than 23 'assumptions', 28 'corrections',
> 13 'estimates' and numerous other 'guesses'.
>
> These papers reveal the depth of desperation of Einstein worshippers.
>
> The perpetrators knew the answer they wanted beforehand and merely adjusted
> all their fifty or so 'assumptions' to produce it.
>
> Physics in the US is indeed in a sad state.
You are bluffing, I bet you haven't even read the paper.
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:45:08 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <r3li38ht4q54jf516...@4ax.com>,
>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:20:03 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
>>> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <2ovf38919kstht6ns...@4ax.com>,
>>>> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My theory applies to the bending of light by gravity.....The Pound Rebka
>>>>> experiment supports it....but that is a minor consideration. .
>>>>
>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>
>>>> Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
>>>> Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
>>>> Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
>>>> Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
>
> You can't be serious.
>
> In this paper, I counted no fewer than 23 'assumptions', 28 'corrections',
> 13 'estimates' and numerous other 'guesses'.
>
> These papers reveal the depth of desperation of Einstein worshippers.
>
> The perpetrators knew the answer they wanted beforehand and merely adjusted
> all their fifty or so 'assumptions' to produce it.
>
> Physics in the US is indeed in a sad state.
Here is a link to it:
http://tinyurl.com/9bb7lkq
I challenge you to be concrete, specify exactly why their measured
value for the PPN parameter gamma = 0.9996 +/- 0.0017 is invalid.
Which 'assumptions' don't hold?
Which 'corrections' are wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Measurement to .2%
>>>>
>>>> Shapiro, S.S., Davis, J.L., Lebach, D.E., and Gregory, J.S.,
>>>> "Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves using
>>>> geodetic very-long-baseline interferometry data, 1979-1999", Phys. Rev.
>>>> Lett., 92, 121101, (2004).
>>>>
>>>> Measurement to .04%
>>>> Froeschle, M., Mignard, F., and Arenou, F., "Determination of the PPN
>>>> parameter ? with the Hipparcos data", in Proceedings from the Hipparcos
>>>> Venice '97 Symposium, Proceedings of the symposium held on 13-16 May
>>>> 1997, (ESA, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 1997).
>>>>
>>>> Measurement to .3%
>>>>
>>>> Fomalont, E., Kopeikin, S., Lanyi, G., and Benson, J., "Progress in
>>>> Measurements of the Gravitational Bending of Radio Waves Using the
>>>> VLBA", Astrophys. J. 699, 1395 (2009).
>>>>
>>>> Measurement to .06%.
>>
>>> ....Lots of vague assumptions....particularly the one that says light always
>>> travels at c.
>>
>> Nope. Read the articles -- I'll bet you can't find that assumption
>> anywhere. These are not theoretical calculations, they're real
>> measurements.
>
> The articles are pathetic jokes.
If you claim that the papers are "pathetic jokes", you
have to give a reason for it.
Here are links to all the papers above in pdf format.
http://tinyurl.com/9bb7lkq
http://tinyurl.com/99o2phj
http://tinyurl.com/8leqeh5
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.3992v1
Please specify why each of it is a "pathetic joke".
No hand waving, you have to be concrete and specify
exactly what is wrong with them.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Paul B. Andersen
Aug 28, 2012, 7:48:10 AM8/28/12
to
On 28.08.2012 00:44, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 23:26:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>> On 27.08.2012 03:27, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25.08.2012 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ralph, you know that the bending of light has been very precisely
>>>>>>> measured by a number of experiments, see Carlip's posting.
>>>>>>> You have been told about these measurements several times before,
>>>>>>> and there is no way you can claim ignorance of them.
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4p7olb
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cv7kreq
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d85cqub
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So your claim is a deliberate lie.
>>
>> With pointers to a lot of "actual figures" on bending of light.
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 23:26:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>> On 27.08.2012 03:27, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25.08.2012 00:33, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ralph, you know that the bending of light has been very precisely
>>>>>>> measured by a number of experiments, see Carlip's posting.
>>>>>>> You have been told about these measurements several times before,
>>>>>>> and there is no way you can claim ignorance of them.
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4p7olb
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cv7kreq
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d85cqub
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So your claim is a deliberate lie.
>>
Like these:
http://tinyurl.com/9bb7lkq
http://tinyurl.com/99o2phj
http://tinyurl.com/8leqeh5
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.3992v1
http://tinyurl.com/99o2phj
http://tinyurl.com/8leqeh5
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.3992v1
> .....they are really funny....I have been laughing at them.
Quite.
"All those funny symbols and strange words, hahahaha".
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Big Dog
Aug 28, 2012, 8:10:45 AM8/28/12
to
and to generate noise to watch OTHER PEOPLE expend effort. That's his
HOBBY.
Fabricating bullshit like what he did above is *easy*, which is why he
does it. It would take effort to actually read the paper critically and
to write down each thing he has a problem with and then to tally them
up, and it is just not of interest to him to spend that kind of effort.
Since personal integrity doesn't mean a fucking thing to him, he
therefore takes the easy path of just fabricating bullshit, because it
accomplishes the same thing for him.
Isn't that obvious?
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 28, 2012, 3:04:53 AM8/28/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com...
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 28, 2012, 5:51:57 PM8/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:34:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 28.08.2012 00:39, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:45:08 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
>> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
>>>>> Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
>>>>> Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
>>>>> Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
>>
>> You can't be serious.
>>
>> In this paper, I counted no fewer than 23 'assumptions', 28 'corrections',
>> 13 'estimates' and numerous other 'guesses'.
>>
>> These papers reveal the depth of desperation of Einstein worshippers.
>>
>> The perpetrators knew the answer they wanted beforehand and merely adjusted
>> all their fifty or so 'assumptions' to produce it.
>>
>> Physics in the US is indeed in a sad state.
>
>You are bluffing, I bet you haven't even read the paper.
>Here is a link to it:
>http://tinyurl.com/9bb7lkq
I read the whole paper. I was laughing so much I couldn't put it down.
<som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 28.08.2012 00:39, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:45:08 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
>> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
>>>>> Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
>>>>> Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
>>>>> Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
>>
>> You can't be serious.
>>
>> In this paper, I counted no fewer than 23 'assumptions', 28 'corrections',
>> 13 'estimates' and numerous other 'guesses'.
>>
>> These papers reveal the depth of desperation of Einstein worshippers.
>>
>> The perpetrators knew the answer they wanted beforehand and merely adjusted
>> all their fifty or so 'assumptions' to produce it.
>>
>> Physics in the US is indeed in a sad state.
>
>You are bluffing, I bet you haven't even read the paper.
>Here is a link to it:
>http://tinyurl.com/9bb7lkq
...just one 'guess' after another....
>I challenge you to be concrete, specify exactly why their measured
>value for the PPN parameter gamma = 0.9996 +/- 0.0017 is invalid.
>Which 'assumptions' don't hold?
>Which 'corrections' are wrong?
just a sequence of guestimates.
US physicists remain fully aware that there has never been an experiment
that directly supports the silly theory. They know that anything remotely
resembling 'supporting evidence' will be published enthusiastically and
bring them instant fame and future funding.
What could be easier? When you know the answer the physics establishment
wants and you can manipulate fifty parameters with rough guestimates, the
rest becomes just a routine semantic exercise.
>http://tinyurl.com/9bb7lkq
>http://tinyurl.com/99o2phj
>http://tinyurl.com/8leqeh5
>http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.3992v1
>
>Please specify why each of it is a "pathetic joke".
>No hand waving, you have to be concrete and specify
>exactly what is wrong with them.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 28, 2012, 5:53:21 PM8/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:31:40 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
Don't snip and lie. I said they are NOT caused by gravity.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 28, 2012, 5:55:17 PM8/28/12
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:04:53 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
I said they are NOT caused by gravity you stupid bastard. How the hell could
gravity bend light enough to cause a mirage?
gravity bend light enough to cause a mirage?
Big Dog
Aug 28, 2012, 5:58:22 PM8/28/12
to
On 8/28/2012 4:51 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:34:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>> On 28.08.2012 00:39, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:45:08 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
>>> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
>>>>>> Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
>>>>>> Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
>>>>>> Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
>>>
>>> You can't be serious.
>>>
>>> In this paper, I counted no fewer than 23 'assumptions', 28 'corrections',
>>> 13 'estimates' and numerous other 'guesses'.
>>>
>>> These papers reveal the depth of desperation of Einstein worshippers.
>>>
>>> The perpetrators knew the answer they wanted beforehand and merely adjusted
>>> all their fifty or so 'assumptions' to produce it.
>>>
>>> Physics in the US is indeed in a sad state.
>>
>> You are bluffing, I bet you haven't even read the paper.
>> Here is a link to it:
>> http://tinyurl.com/9bb7lkq
>
> I read the whole paper. I was laughing so much I couldn't put it down.
> ...just one 'guess' after another....
List them. Itemize them.
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:34:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>> On 28.08.2012 00:39, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:45:08 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
>>> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
>>>>>> Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
>>>>>> Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
>>>>>> Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
>>>
>>> You can't be serious.
>>>
>>> In this paper, I counted no fewer than 23 'assumptions', 28 'corrections',
>>> 13 'estimates' and numerous other 'guesses'.
>>>
>>> These papers reveal the depth of desperation of Einstein worshippers.
>>>
>>> The perpetrators knew the answer they wanted beforehand and merely adjusted
>>> all their fifty or so 'assumptions' to produce it.
>>>
>>> Physics in the US is indeed in a sad state.
>>
>> You are bluffing, I bet you haven't even read the paper.
>> Here is a link to it:
>> http://tinyurl.com/9bb7lkq
>
> I read the whole paper. I was laughing so much I couldn't put it down.
> ...just one 'guess' after another....
>
>> I challenge you to be concrete, specify exactly why their measured
>> value for the PPN parameter gamma = 0.9996 +/- 0.0017 is invalid.
>
>> Which 'assumptions' don't hold?
>> Which 'corrections' are wrong?
>
> Paul, there are at least 50 vague assumptions/estimates in that paper. It is
> just a sequence of guestimates.
yourself in the mirror?
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 28, 2012, 7:52:58 PM8/28/12
to
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 28, 2012, 7:58:12 PM8/28/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:ndfq381r2nvoibjf3...@4ax.com...
No you did NOT, you LYING CUNT. READ THE REFERENCE!
All I snipped was "you silly old pom", YOU DRUNKEN LYING OZZIE CUNT!
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:9LqdnZVOesi...@giganews.com...
It is not me who is wrong.
Tom Roberts
You are just like Roberts.
The prisons are full of the angry innocent who'll swear on the bible
they did nothing wrong and didn't mean to rob the bank at gunpoint.
and I can't change it, Google has it archived.
Keep digging that hole deeper, fuckwit.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 28, 2012, 7:43:59 PM8/28/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:2gfq38to8s83bt4n5...@4ax.com...
I only report what you actually wrote, you silly old ozzie. There it is,
just
above, exactly as you wrote it.
"Mirages are caused by gravity you silly old pom." -- Chief ozzie
sheepshagger.
Silly statement...feel "embarassed" "pleased"....
You're as bad as little Eric who calls himself pigdog sometimes. How the
hell
could gravity bend light enough to cause a mirage known as the Einstein
cross?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross
Does this reveal a real fundamental aspect of nature?
Does this qualify to be a law?
Just like a mirage? Same physics.
Silly statement...feel embarRassed please(~d)....
John Gogo is at least thinking, which is more than you ever will.
Be embarrassed, you fucking stupid ozzie shit.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 29, 2012, 7:06:26 AM8/29/12
to
"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
news:odmq38pev736g8oke...@4ax.com...
The pair of you really ought to read this:
http://biblio.co.uk/isaac-asimov/quasar-quasar-burning~42280613~title
I don't agree with everything Asimov says, but it might open your eyes
to what science is and it's at a price you can easily afford.
Dirk Van de moortel
Aug 29, 2012, 9:04:07 AM8/29/12
to
says in volume 2 of http://www.amazon.com/dp/0880292512/
Dirk Vdm
Big Dog
Aug 29, 2012, 9:53:49 AM8/29/12
to
Bullshitting, useless twat.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 29, 2012, 12:08:46 PM8/29/12
to
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
news:503e1346$0$3121$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway <aug...@2012.org> wrote:
> "Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
> news:odmq38pev736g8oke...@4ax.com...
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:58:22 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 8/28/2012 4:51 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:34:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>>> I read the whole paper. I was laughing so much I couldn't put it
>>> down. ...just one 'guess' after another....
>>
>> List them. Itemize them.
>>
>>>
>>>> I challenge you to be concrete, specify exactly why their measured
>>>> value for the PPN parameter gamma = 0.9996 +/- 0.0017 is invalid.
>>>
>>>> Which 'assumptions' don't hold?
>>>> Which 'corrections' are wrong?
>>>
>>> Paul, there are at least 50 vague assumptions/estimates in that
>>> paper. It is
>>> just a sequence of guestimates.
>>
>> List them. Fucking useless bullshit flinger. How do you even look at
>> yourself in the mirror?
>
> Go away, silly girl...
>
> =========================================================
> The pair of you really ought to read this:
> http://biblio.co.uk/isaac-asimov/quasar-quasar-burning~42280613~title
> I don't agree with everything Asimov says, but it might open your eyes
have aged 10 years (2T) while his travelling twin sister will have
aged 6 years (2T/g).
-- Dork Van de faggot
=======================================================
I should bettttttttter believe a deranged Belgian butt-fucker with a turd
fetish, right?
You should get rid of that stutter, Dork, a spelling checker might help your
speech impediment.
news:503e1346$0$3121$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway <aug...@2012.org> wrote:
> "Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
> news:odmq38pev736g8oke...@4ax.com...
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:58:22 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 8/28/2012 4:51 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:34:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>>> I read the whole paper. I was laughing so much I couldn't put it
>>> down. ...just one 'guess' after another....
>>
>> List them. Itemize them.
>>
>>>
>>>> I challenge you to be concrete, specify exactly why their measured
>>>> value for the PPN parameter gamma = 0.9996 +/- 0.0017 is invalid.
>>>
>>>> Which 'assumptions' don't hold?
>>>> Which 'corrections' are wrong?
>>>
>>> Paul, there are at least 50 vague assumptions/estimates in that
>>> paper. It is
>>> just a sequence of guestimates.
>>
>> List them. Fucking useless bullshit flinger. How do you even look at
>> yourself in the mirror?
>
> Go away, silly girl...
>
> =========================================================
> The pair of you really ought to read this:
> http://biblio.co.uk/isaac-asimov/quasar-quasar-burning~42280613~title
> to what science is and it's at a price you can easily afford.
>
> -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
>
> -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
*YOU* of all turds should bettter not believe *anything* he
says in volume 2 of http://www.amazon.com/dp/0880292512/
So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
says in volume 2 of http://www.amazon.com/dp/0880292512/
have aged 10 years (2T) while his travelling twin sister will have
aged 6 years (2T/g).
-- Dork Van de faggot
=======================================================
I should bettttttttter believe a deranged Belgian butt-fucker with a turd
fetish, right?
You should get rid of that stutter, Dork, a spelling checker might help your
speech impediment.
Paul B. Andersen
Aug 29, 2012, 4:22:51 PM8/29/12
to
On 28.08.2012 23:51, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:34:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>> On 28.08.2012 00:39, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:45:08 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
>>> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
>>>>>> Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
>>>>>> Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
>>>>>> Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
>>>
>>> You can't be serious.
>>>
>>> In this paper, I counted no fewer than 23 'assumptions', 28 'corrections',
>>> 13 'estimates' and numerous other 'guesses'.
>>>
>>> These papers reveal the depth of desperation of Einstein worshippers.
>>>
>>> The perpetrators knew the answer they wanted beforehand and merely adjusted
>>> all their fifty or so 'assumptions' to produce it.
>>>
>>> Physics in the US is indeed in a sad state.
>>
>> You are bluffing, I bet you haven't even read the paper.
>> Here is a link to it:
>> http://tinyurl.com/9bb7lkq
>
> I read the whole paper. I was laughing so much I couldn't put it down.
> ...just one 'guess' after another....
Quite.
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:34:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>
>> On 28.08.2012 00:39, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:45:08 -0700, STEVEN CARLIP
>>> <car...@nospam.physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact is, such bending has never been acurately measured.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lebach, D.E., Corey, B.E., Shapiro, I.I., Ratner, M.I., Webber, J.C.,
>>>>>> Rogers, A.E.E., Davis, J.L., and Herring, T.A., "Measurement of the
>>>>>> Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using Very-Long-Baseline
>>>>>> Interferometry", Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439-1442, (1995).
>>>
>>> You can't be serious.
>>>
>>> In this paper, I counted no fewer than 23 'assumptions', 28 'corrections',
>>> 13 'estimates' and numerous other 'guesses'.
>>>
>>> These papers reveal the depth of desperation of Einstein worshippers.
>>>
>>> The perpetrators knew the answer they wanted beforehand and merely adjusted
>>> all their fifty or so 'assumptions' to produce it.
>>>
>>> Physics in the US is indeed in a sad state.
>>
>> You are bluffing, I bet you haven't even read the paper.
>> Here is a link to it:
>> http://tinyurl.com/9bb7lkq
>
> I read the whole paper. I was laughing so much I couldn't put it down.
> ...just one 'guess' after another....
"All those funny symbols and strange words, hahahaha!"
"Kalman estimator! ESTIMATOR!!! They are guessing, hahahahaha"
"plasma-corrected delays! CORRECTED!!!! They are fiddling
the data, hahahaha"
The purpose of my 'challenge' was of course to make you demonstrate
your inability to point out even a single 'assumption' or 'correction'
that doesn't hold.
Thanks for obliging!
I rest my case.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Paul B. Andersen
Aug 29, 2012, 5:08:37 PM8/29/12
to
On 28.08.2012 23:53, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:31:40 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway"
>> -- "Mirages are caused by gravity" -- Henry Wilson, 28/8/12
>> news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com
>
> Don't snip and lie. I said they are NOT caused by gravity.
>
http://tinyurl.com/cejp892
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:31:40 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway"
>> -- "Mirages are caused by gravity" -- Henry Wilson, 28/8/12
>> news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com
>
> Don't snip and lie. I said they are NOT caused by gravity.
>
http://tinyurl.com/cejp892
"Mirages are caused by gravity you silly old pom.
You're as bad as pigdog sometimes."
:-)
You're as bad as pigdog sometimes."
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 29, 2012, 5:10:04 PM8/29/12
to
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message news:k1m0cn$bn7$1...@news.albasani.net...
-- "Paul B. Andersen" wrote (in re the Twin Paradox) in message
news:k1icie$4k7$1...@news.albasani.net
No.
Their rates will be the same, the accumulated times will not.
====================================================
accumulate = integrate.
Andersen is saying the tick count of one clock, integral [dt/dt].dt
does not equal the tick count of the other clock, integral[dtau/dt].dt
but dtau/dt = dt/dt (=1 second per second), the rates are the same.
He added different constants to the integrals, the clocks were not
synchronised to begin with.
Andersen is, as we know, dishonest through and through, as well
as being, as we know, thoroughly stupid through and through.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
news:k1icie$4k7$1...@news.albasani.net
No.
Their rates will be the same, the accumulated times will not.
====================================================
accumulate = integrate.
Andersen is saying the tick count of one clock, integral [dt/dt].dt
does not equal the tick count of the other clock, integral[dtau/dt].dt
but dtau/dt = dt/dt (=1 second per second), the rates are the same.
He added different constants to the integrals, the clocks were not
synchronised to begin with.
Andersen is, as we know, dishonest through and through, as well
as being, as we know, thoroughly stupid through and through.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 29, 2012, 7:03:05 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:22:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
Paul, the authors could have easily arranged for a factor of two to appear,
just by fiddling the fifty odd assumptions.
>Thanks for obliging!
>
>I rest my case.
Paul, anyone who spins a laser so that its 'beam' curves out a spiral path
when viewed from above and who believes that light moves at c around that
spiral presents no case that needs to be answered.
just by fiddling the fifty odd assumptions.
>Thanks for obliging!
>
>I rest my case.
when viewed from above and who believes that light moves at c around that
spiral presents no case that needs to be answered.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 29, 2012, 7:05:14 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:58:12 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
>news:ndfq381r2nvoibjf3...@4ax.com...
snips randomly, that is not my fault.
It's a pity it doesn't snip ALL of your posts.
>news:ndfq381r2nvoibjf3...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>-- "Mirages are caused by gravity" -- Henry Wilson, 28/8/12
>>news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com
>
>Don't snip and lie. I said they are NOT caused by gravity.
>==============================================
>No you did NOT, you LYING CUNT. READ THE REFERENCE!
>
>-- "Mirages are caused by gravity" -- Henry Wilson, 28/8/12
>news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com
>All I snipped was "you silly old pom", YOU DRUNKEN LYING OZZIE CUNT!
>
>"Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:9LqdnZVOesi...@giganews.com...
>It is not me who is wrong.
>Tom Roberts
>
>You are just like Roberts.
>The prisons are full of the angry innocent who'll swear on the bible
>they did nothing wrong and didn't mean to rob the bank at gunpoint.
>
>"Mirages are caused by gravity" -- Henry Wilson, 28/8/12
>news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com
>and I can't change it, Google has it archived.
>
>Keep digging that hole deeper, fuckwit.
I obviously stated that mirages are not caused by gravity. If your browser
>>
>>-- "Mirages are caused by gravity" -- Henry Wilson, 28/8/12
>>news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com
>
>Don't snip and lie. I said they are NOT caused by gravity.
>==============================================
>No you did NOT, you LYING CUNT. READ THE REFERENCE!
>
>-- "Mirages are caused by gravity" -- Henry Wilson, 28/8/12
>news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com
>All I snipped was "you silly old pom", YOU DRUNKEN LYING OZZIE CUNT!
>
>"Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:9LqdnZVOesi...@giganews.com...
>It is not me who is wrong.
>Tom Roberts
>
>You are just like Roberts.
>The prisons are full of the angry innocent who'll swear on the bible
>they did nothing wrong and didn't mean to rob the bank at gunpoint.
>
>"Mirages are caused by gravity" -- Henry Wilson, 28/8/12
>news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com
>and I can't change it, Google has it archived.
>
>Keep digging that hole deeper, fuckwit.
snips randomly, that is not my fault.
It's a pity it doesn't snip ALL of your posts.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Aug 29, 2012, 7:07:11 PM8/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 23:08:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 28.08.2012 23:53, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:31:40 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
>Medway"
> >> -- "Mirages are caused by gravity" -- Henry Wilson, 28/8/12
> >> news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com
> >
> > Don't snip and lie. I said they are NOT caused by gravity.
> >
>
>http://tinyurl.com/cejp892
>"Mirages are caused by gravity you silly old pom.
> You're as bad as pigdog sometimes."
They are NOT caused by gravity. ...except in the case of a star behind
<som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 28.08.2012 23:53, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:31:40 +0100, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
>Medway"
> >> -- "Mirages are caused by gravity" -- Henry Wilson, 28/8/12
> >> news:l4un381vmuj02imc7...@4ax.com
> >
> > Don't snip and lie. I said they are NOT caused by gravity.
> >
>
>http://tinyurl.com/cejp892
>"Mirages are caused by gravity you silly old pom.
> You're as bad as pigdog sometimes."
another.
END OF STORY
>:-)
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages