For Henry Wilson. Poor, pitiable Henry Wilson

[Odd Bodkin]

Henry,

Face facts.

When your complaints about relativity are reduced to stating that all of
the documented experimental measurements are falsified; that no
experiment feasible up to today could ever achieve the sensitivity
claimed by the experimenters; that every shred of evidence has been
fabricated by a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of
people who are all producers of this false data -- then you are saying
that physics as an entire enterprise is a fiction with not even a
handful of people telling the truth, and that absolutely nothing
produced by that enterprise is true.

Anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who purports such a systemic and
widespread scale of lies is in play is immediately and correctly
assessed to be nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane,
four spades short of a full deck.

I'm going to guess that you know this.


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[HGW.]

On 26/07/16 03:12, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Henry,
>
> Face facts.
>
> When your complaints about relativity are reduced to stating that all of
> the documented experimental measurements are falsified; that no
> experiment feasible up to today could ever achieve the sensitivity
> claimed by the experimenters; that every shred of evidence has been
> fabricated by a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of
> people who are all producers of this false data -- then you are saying
> that physics as an entire enterprise is a fiction with not even a
> handful of people telling the truth, and that absolutely nothing
> produced by that enterprise is true.

Well the experiments might not always be faked but the interpretations
of the result certainly are.

Bodkin, in case you are not aware of the fact, Einstein's whole theory
is based on the existence of one universal light carrying medium that is
supposed to unify the speed of light from all sources... commonly
referred to as the aether. Since there is no evidence that such a medium
exists and there is plenty of evidence that it does not, there is no
reason to believe that any of Einstein's theories can be correct.

> Anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who purports such a systemic and
> widespread scale of lies is in play is immediately and correctly
> assessed to be nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane,
> four spades short of a full deck.

I appears to me that there are far more Einstein skeptics than
supporters in the world.

> I'm going to guess that you know this.

Fortunately, none of Einstein's silly theory has any relevance in the
daily lives of the majority of physicists and most research work can go
ahead without incurring the errors that its inclusion would cause.



--

[Michael Moroney]

"HGW." <hw@....> writes:

>Bodkin, in case you are not aware of the fact, Einstein's whole theory
>is based on the existence of one universal light carrying medium that is
>supposed to unify the speed of light from all sources... commonly
>referred to as the aether.

, __ _ _
/|/ \ | | | |
|___/ __, | | _ | |
| \ / | |/ |/ \_|/ \
| \_/\_/|_/|__/|__/ | |_/
/|
,__ __ \| _
/| | | | | | |
| | | __, | | __ __ | | _ _ _
| | | / | |/ / / \_|/ / |/ |/ |
| | |_/\_/|_/|__/\___/\__/ |__/ | | |_/
, __ _ _
/|/ \ | | | | o |
|___/ __, | | | | __| __, _
| \ / | |/ \_|/ \_| / | / | |/
| \_/\_/|_/\_/ \_/ |_/\_/|_/\_/|/|__/o
/| /
\|

you have been told many, many times, Ralph Rabbidge, that Einstein
explicitly disavowed the aether in his 1905 SR paper, Ralph Rabbidge.
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, how many times do you have to read his statement:
"The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous
inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an 'absolutely
stationary space' provided with special properties, nor assign a
velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
processes take place." before you get it through your thick head, Ralph,
that Einstein's theory, Ralph, does not use any sort of 'universal light
carrying medium' a.k.a. aether, Ralph Rabbidge.

> Since there is no evidence that such a medium
>exists and there is plenty of evidence that it does not,

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I'm glad you agree with Einstein on something
for once, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, maybe someday you'll actually
read some scientific literature for once, Ralph, and from it, you may
find a few other things you agree with Einstein, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

>> Anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who purports such a systemic and
>> widespread scale of lies is in play is immediately and correctly
>> assessed to be nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane,
>> four spades short of a full deck.

>I appears to me that there are far more Einstein skeptics than
>supporters in the world.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, just because there are a ton of iron filings stuck
to a magnet doesn't mean the world is covered with iron filings, Ralph.
In the same way, Ralph, just because there are a ton of anti-Einstein
kooks stuck to the kook magnet called sci.physics.relativity or in your
asylum doesn't mean there are an awful lot of them elsewhere, Ralph
Malcolm Rabbidge.

>> I'm going to guess that you know this.

>Fortunately, none of Einstein's silly theory has any relevance in the
>daily lives of the majority of physicists and most research work can go
>ahead without incurring the errors that its inclusion would cause.

Like that computer you are typing on to rail against relativity, Ralph
Malcolm Rabbidge? Or that GPS voice directing you back to the asylum
so that you can be properly locked up at night, Ralph?

[HGW.]

On 28/07/16 11:44, Michael Moron-y wrote:
> "HGW." <hw@....> writes:

> you have been told many, many times, Henry George Wilson, that Einstein
> explicitly disavowed the aether in his 1905 SR paper, Henry George Wilson,

> how many times do you have to read his statement:
> "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous
> inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an 'absolutely
> stationary space' provided with special properties, nor assign a
> velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic

> processes take place." before you get it through your thick head, Henry,
> that Einstein's theory, Henry , does not use any sort of 'universal light
> carrying medium' a.k.a. aether, Henry George Wilson.

Einstein was a very confused man. He wanted to cling to the findings of
Lorentz and Poincare but was very much influenced by Walter Ritz. So he
tried to combine bits of LET and True relativity, AKA the ballistic
theory of light. That is why he got himself in such a mess.
Saying the aether was 'superfluous' does not mean it went away
completely. He just meant that it was not needed, apart from providing
the light speed unifying factor that was assumed in his P2.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 4:12:08 PM UTC-7, HGW. wrote:

> ... Einstein's whole theory

> is based on the existence of one universal light carrying medium that is
> supposed to unify the speed of light from all sources... commonly
> referred to as the aether.

"Albert Einstein published in September 1905 what is now called special relativity, which was based on a radical new application of the relativity principle in connection with the constancy of the speed of light. In special relativity, the space and time coordinates depend on the inertial observer's frame of reference, and the luminiferous aether plays NO ROLE in the physics."

Once an idiot always an idiot.

Have you even read the document?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/27/2016 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote:
> On 26/07/16 03:12, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Henry,
>>
>> Face facts.
>>
>> When your complaints about relativity are reduced to stating that all of
>> the documented experimental measurements are falsified; that no
>> experiment feasible up to today could ever achieve the sensitivity
>> claimed by the experimenters; that every shred of evidence has been
>> fabricated by a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of
>> people who are all producers of this false data -- then you are saying
>> that physics as an entire enterprise is a fiction with not even a
>> handful of people telling the truth, and that absolutely nothing
>> produced by that enterprise is true.
>
> Well the experiments might not always be faked but the interpretations
> of the result certainly are.

If there are two numbers with error bars, there is no possibility of
fakery. They either agree or they don't agree. It is not possible to
MISINTERPRET a confirmed experimental result so that it mistakenly
agrees with a theory.

>
> Bodkin, in case you are not aware of the fact, Einstein's whole theory
> is based on the existence of one universal light carrying medium that is
> supposed to unify the speed of light from all sources.

Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this medium
was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = "superfluous" in
your mind?

Do you understand why your comment reinforces the correct assessment
that you are nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane, four
spades short of a full deck?

> .. commonly
> referred to as the aether. Since there is no evidence that such a medium
> exists and there is plenty of evidence that it does not, there is no
> reason to believe that any of Einstein's theories can be correct.
>
>> Anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who purports such a systemic and
>> widespread scale of lies is in play is immediately and correctly
>> assessed to be nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane,
>> four spades short of a full deck.
>
> I appears to me that there are far more Einstein skeptics than
> supporters in the world.
>
>> I'm going to guess that you know this.
>
> Fortunately, none of Einstein's silly theory has any relevance in the
> daily lives of the majority of physicists and most research work can go
> ahead without incurring the errors that its inclusion would cause.
>
>
>


--

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/27/2016 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote:

> I appears to me that there are far more Einstein skeptics than
> supporters in the world.

But Henry, since you don't get out of the house much, isn't it plain
that when you're only counting to 1, then 1 is going to be far more than 0?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/28/2016 4:58 AM, HGW. wrote:
> Saying the aether was 'superfluous' does not mean it went away
> completely. He just meant that it was not needed,

Note "not needed"

> apart from providing
> the light speed unifying factor that was assumed in his P2.

Note needed.

Henry, the only person here that is confused is you.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/27/16 7/27/16 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote:
> Einstein's whole theory is based
> on the existence of one universal light carrying medium that is supposed to
> unify the speed of light from all sources... commonly referred to as the aether.

This is just plain not true.

This is apparently part of the complex FANTASY world that Wilson has concocted
for himself. It is completely unrelated to the real world, the one we all inhabit.

> I appears to me that there are far more Einstein skeptics than supporters in the
> world.

In Wilson's FANTASY world, sure (one, HGW, is indeed "far more" than zero). In
the world we inhabit, this is just plain not true; not even close. There are on
the order of a hundred thousand physicists in the world, and essentially NONE of
them could be classed as EITHER "Einstein skeptics" or "Einstein supporters".
But essentially all of them respect the man and use his theories (which I
suppose could loosely be termed "supporting" in this bass-ackwards way of
looking at it).

In science, one does not "support" a man or his theories.
But one might well honor a man and use/apply a given theory.

Einstein Skeptics certainly outnumber knowledgeable people AROUND HERE. But this
atypical microcosm is not at all indicative of the world at large. There are
perhaps a few dozen such skeptics in the world, compared to MILLIONS who
recognize Einstein's contributions. Even Time Magazine recognized Einstein's
greatness, naming him the Person of the Century (1900-1999).

> Fortunately, none of Einstein's silly theory has any relevance in the daily
> lives of the majority of physicists and most research work can go ahead without
> incurring the errors that its inclusion would cause.

Again, in Wilson's FANTASY world this may be true; but in the world we inhabit
it is also just plain wrong. Essentially all of modern physics is based on
Einstein's work, in one way or another -- that's why he holds such an honored
place in the physics community (of which Wilson is clearly NOT a member).

Certainly the >10,000 particle physicists use SR daily, and
the thousands of physicists working in modern cosmology and
astrophysics use GR daily. The thousands of atomic and molecular
physicists use his contributions to QED and QM daily. And
of course the thousands of theorists use his approach based on
symmetry daily.

> Einstein was a very confused man.

The confusion is all Wilson's. He is continually unable to distinguish his
personal FANTASIES from what actually happens in the world we inhabit. So
sad.... He is more to be pitied than censured.


Tom Roberts

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 28.07.2016 01:12, HGW. wrote:
> On 26/07/16 03:12, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Henry,
>>
>> Face facts.
>>
>> When your complaints about relativity are reduced to stating that all of
>> the documented experimental measurements are falsified; that no
>> experiment feasible up to today could ever achieve the sensitivity
>> claimed by the experimenters; that every shred of evidence has been
>> fabricated by a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of
>> people who are all producers of this false data -- then you are saying
>> that physics as an entire enterprise is a fiction with not even a
>> handful of people telling the truth, and that absolutely nothing
>> produced by that enterprise is true.
>
> Well the experiments might not always be faked but the interpretations
> of the result certainly are.

This nonsensical statement of yours give me an opportunity
to repeat a posting which you previously failed to give
a rational response to.

https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
Let's take one of the experiments in the list above:

https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Let's have a look at these data and their interpretation.

The equation for the gravitational deflection of the light from
a star as observed by the Hipparcos satellite is:

deflection_angle = (2GM/rc^2) x (1+gamma)/2 x sin(X)/(1-cos(X))

where G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light,
M is the mass of the Sun,
r is the distance from the centre of Sun to the Hipparcos satellite,
X is the angular distance between the Sun and the star.

gamma is the PPN parameter with the following meaning:
If you set gamma = 0, the equation is the Newtonian prediction,
if you set gamma = 1, the equation is the GR prediction.

Hipparcos has measured the apparent positions of thousands of stars
with extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made
by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find
how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun.

These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation
above and gamma can be determined.

The result is that gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003

This means that the measured angles are very close to
the prediction of GR, and twice the Newtonian prediction.

These measurements are not "on the limits of accuracy",
quite the contrary.
The difference between the angle predicted by Newton and
the measured angle is a factor of 2, the former is
300 times the error bar too small.

Bottom line:
The measured gravitational deflections of the light from 87382 stars
are in accordance with the predictions of GR and twice the predictions
of Newtonian gravitation.


Ralph, I challenge you answer the following question:

Do you claim that the Hipparcos data (millions of measurements)
for these 87382 stars are faked?


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[HGW.]

On 28/07/16 23:55, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/27/2016 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote:

>>
>> Well the experiments might not always be faked but the
>> interpretations of the result certainly are.
>
> If there are two numbers with error bars, there is no possibility of
> fakery. They either agree or they don't agree. It is not possible to
> MISINTERPRET a confirmed experimental result so that it mistakenly
> agrees with a theory.

Error bars have no place in physics.
There is only right or wrong.

Statistics is the fakers right hand.

>> Bodkin, in case you are not aware of the fact, Einstein's whole
>> theory is based on the existence of one universal light carrying
>> medium that is supposed to unify the speed of light from all
>> sources.
>
> Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this
> medium was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" =
> "superfluous" in your mind?

The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist.
If you understood how Poincare developed Einstein SR almost word for
word, you would know what I am talking about.

> Do you understand why your comment reinforces the correct assessment
> that you are nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane,
> four spades short of a full deck?

Your description would fit the average dingleberry perfectly...



--

[HGW.]

In reality, the gamma term does not exist anywhere in physics... It is a
consequence of aether theory, which has been thrown out.

> Hipparcos has measured the apparent positions of thousands of stars
> with extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made
> by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find
> how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun.
>
> These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation
> above and gamma can be determined.
>
> The result is that gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003

What was the telescope's reference for direction, Paul?

> This means that the measured angles are very close to
> the prediction of GR, and twice the Newtonian prediction.
>
> These measurements are not "on the limits of accuracy",
> quite the contrary.
> The difference between the angle predicted by Newton and
> the measured angle is a factor of 2, the former is
> 300 times the error bar too small.

Paul, any experiment where a desired answer is known and which involves
statistics is not worth worth a piece of bear shit.....particularly if
it is performed by a bunch of desperate dingleberries.

> Bottom line:
> The measured gravitational deflections of the light from 87382 stars
> are in accordance with the predictions of GR and twice the predictions
> of Newtonian gravitation.
>
>
> Ralph, I challenge you answer the following question:
>
> Do you claim that the Hipparcos data (millions of measurements)
> for these 87382 stars are faked?

Paul, nobody checked the positions of 8732 stars with sufficient
accuracy to tell if their light was bent according to Newton or to
Einstein. You are dreaming again.

>


--

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 4:12:28 PM UTC-6, HGW. wrote:
>
> On 28/07/16 23:55, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> > On 7/27/2016 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote:
> > >
> > > Well the experiments might not always be faked but the
> > > interpretations of the result certainly are.
> >
> > If there are two numbers with error bars, there is no possibility of
> > fakery. They either agree or they don't agree. It is not possible to
> > MISINTERPRET a confirmed experimental result so that it mistakenly
> > agrees with a theory.
>
> Error bars have no place in physics.

Hahahahaha!!!!

> There is only right or wrong.

If so, then Ralphie-boy is wrong.

> Statistics is the fakers right hand.

“Statistics don’t lie …. But they sure shoot off their mouth a lot!”
-- Peanuts

> > > Bodkin, in case you are not aware of the fact, Einstein's whole
> > > theory is based on the existence of one universal light carrying
> > > medium that is supposed to unify the speed of light from all
> > > sources.
> >
> > Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this
> > medium was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" =
> > "superfluous" in your mind?
>
> The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist.

It says right out that it doesn't matter, makes no difference ... which
means that it doesn't affect light in any way.

> If you understood how Poincare developed Einstein SR almost word for
> word, you would know what I am talking about.

You are talking baloney. So are you saying that Poincare was wrong, too?

> > Do you understand why your comment reinforces the correct assessment
> > that you are nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane,
> > four spades short of a full deck?
>
> Your description would fit the average dingleberry perfectly...

It fits ALL of the stupid anti-relativity cranks like you, Seto, Valev,
Wozniak and a few other denizens that infest this group.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 4:24:16 PM UTC-6, HGW. wrote:
>
> On 29/07/16 03:33, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> > This nonsensical statement of yours give me an opportunity
> > to repeat a posting which you previously failed to give
> > a rational response to.
> >
> > https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
> > Let's take one of the experiments in the list above:
> >
> > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
> > Let's have a look at these data and their interpretation.
> >
> > The equation for the gravitational deflection of the light from
> > a star as observed by the Hipparcos satellite is:
> >
> > deflection_angle = (2GM/rc^2) x (1+gamma)/2 x sin(X)/(1-cos(X))
> >
> > where G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light,
> > M is the mass of the Sun,
> > r is the distance from the centre of Sun to the Hipparcos satellite,
> > X is the angular distance between the Sun and the star.
> >
> > gamma is the PPN parameter with the following meaning:
> > If you set gamma = 0, the equation is the Newtonian prediction,
> > if you set gamma = 1, the equation is the GR prediction.
>
> In reality, the gamma term does not exist anywhere in physics...

Hahahahahaha!!! That is SO rich!

> It is a consequence of aether theory, which has been thrown out.

Aether theory is Ralphie-boy's ridiculous straw man buzzword that he throws
up as a smoke screen to hide the fact that he is stupid and realizes it.

> > Hipparcos has measured the apparent positions of thousands of stars
> > with extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made
> > by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find
> > how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun.
> >
> > These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation
> > above and gamma can be determined.
> >
> > The result is that gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003
>
> What was the telescope's reference for direction, Paul?

So Ralphie-boy doesn't understand the first thing about spacecraft orientation
technology. That's to be expected because he is profoundly ignorant about
science.

> > This means that the measured angles are very close to
> > the prediction of GR, and twice the Newtonian prediction.
> >
> > These measurements are not "on the limits of accuracy",
> > quite the contrary.
> > The difference between the angle predicted by Newton and
> > the measured angle is a factor of 2, the former is
> > 300 times the error bar too small.
>
> Paul, any experiment where a desired answer is known and which involves
> statistics is not worth worth a piece of bear shit.....particularly if
> it is performed by a bunch of desperate dingleberries.

Ralphie-boy is the standard desperate Dingle wannabe. His claim proves
that his felonious variable star mischaracterization since he knows the
answer he wants to get before he starts. Then he invents a theory that
incoherent light can interfere with other incoherent light, which is
completely contrary to experimental and theoretical physics.

> > Bottom line:
> > The measured gravitational deflections of the light from 87382 stars
> > are in accordance with the predictions of GR and twice the predictions
> > of Newtonian gravitation.
> >
> >
> > Ralph, I challenge you answer the following question:
> >
> > Do you claim that the Hipparcos data (millions of measurements)
> > for these 87382 stars are faked?
>
> Paul, nobody checked the positions of 8732 stars with sufficient
> accuracy to tell if their light was bent according to Newton or to
> Einstein.

Yes, they did. And they checked 10 times as many, too.

Ralphie-boy is dreaming again, fantasizing that nothing exists outside his
little hovel.

[HGW.]

On 29/07/16 02:27, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/27/16 7/27/16 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote:
>> Einstein's whole theory is based
>> on the existence of one universal light carrying medium that is
>> supposed to
>> unify the speed of light from all sources... commonly referred to as
>> the aether.
>
> This is just plain not true.
>
> This is apparently part of the complex FANTASY world that Wilson has
> concocted for himself. It is completely unrelated to the real world, the
> one we all inhabit.

Tom, are you aware of Poincare's relativity. It is identical to
Einstein's except that Poincare was honest enough to admit his belief in
the aether. The theory only worked IF the absolute light carrying medium
existed, in which case all observers would MEASURE OWLS to be c, because
of the bogus LTs .
Einstein's masterstroke was to realize that since the existence of the
aether could never be detected with light and because it played no part
in Poincare's equations, it could be declared SUPERFLUOUS. In other
words, it did not matter if it was mentioned or not. For that blatant
piece of plagiarism, he became famous in the minds of many early SciFi
fanatics.

The aether's principle role was to unify the speeds of all light from
all sources. Einstein merely replaced that function with his P2. The LTs
accounted for its independence of observer speeds. This should all be
obvious to a person of your acclaimed calibre.

If you know of any other mechanism that could unify all light speeds
then y0ou should share it with the rest of the world......and please
don't just say it comes from 'spacetime geometry'. Your version of
spacetime is BASED ON the assumption that all light speeds are unified
already.

> Certainly the >10,000 particle physicists use SR daily, and
> the thousands of physicists working in modern cosmology and
> astrophysics use GR daily.

There are not.

The thousands of atomic and molecular
> physicists use his contributions to QED and QM daily. And
> of course the thousands of theorists use his approach based on
> symmetry daily.

They never use Einstein's theory unless they want a wrong answer.


>
> Tom Roberts


--

[Michael Moroney]

"HGW." <hw@....> writes:

>On 28/07/16 11:44, Michael Moron-y wrote:
>> "HGW." <hw@....> writes:

>> you have been told many, many times, Henry George Wilson, that Einstein
>> explicitly disavowed the aether in his 1905 SR paper, Henry George Wilson,
>> how many times do you have to read his statement:
>> "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous
>> inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an 'absolutely
>> stationary space' provided with special properties, nor assign a
>> velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
>> processes take place." before you get it through your thick head, Henry,
>> that Einstein's theory, Henry , does not use any sort of 'universal light
>> carrying medium' a.k.a. aether, Henry George Wilson.

__, _, _, __, _,_ _, _ _, _, _, _, _, _, _
|_) /_\ | |_) |_| |\/| /_\ | / ` / \ | |\/|
| \ | | | , | | | | | | | | , \ , \ / | , | |
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~

__, _, __, __, _ __, _, __,
|_) /_\ |_) |_) | | \ / _ |_
| \ | | |_) |_) | |_/ \ / |
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~

I guess you really love this abuse, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph,
I know I asked this before, Ralph, but I will ask again, Ralph Rabbidge.
Ralph, your buddy Einstein was attributed as saying: "Insanity is
doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results",
Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you are doing the same thing over and over
again, Ralph, so I must ask, Ralph. Do you expect different results
each time, Ralph? Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I have told you repeatedly,
Ralph, not to expect any different results, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
Each time you mess with my quotes, Ralph, I wall plaster your name
(which is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) all over my next reply, Ralph.
So Ralph, you either love this abuse, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, or you
are insane, according to your buddy Einstein, Ralph.

>Einstein was a very confused man.

No, Ralph. It is you who is confused, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph, you
read Einstein writing "the aether was 'superfluous'" and somehow come up
with "the aether is necessary", Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph, you can't
get more confused than that, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

>Saying the aether was 'superfluous' does not mean it went away
>completely.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, yes it does, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge,
saying the aether was 'superfluous' means it is totally unnecessary,
Ralph, and it has no influence whatsoever, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

> He just meant that it was not needed, apart from providing
>the light speed unifying factor that was assumed in his P2.

No, Ralph. He meant that it was not needed AT ALL, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
Ralph, YOU need the aether to try to rationalize a constant speed of
light, Ralph Rabbidge. But that is YOUR flaw, Ralph, so don't try to
project your flaw onto Einstein, Ralph.

[Michael Moroney]

"HGW." <hw@....> writes:

>On 28/07/16 23:55, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> If there are two numbers with error bars, there is no possibility of
>> fakery. They either agree or they don't agree. It is not possible to
>> MISINTERPRET a confirmed experimental result so that it mistakenly
>> agrees with a theory.

>Error bars have no place in physics.
>There is only right or wrong.

__, _, _, __, _,_ _, _ _, _, _, _, _, _, _
|_) /_\ | |_) |_| |\/| /_\ | / ` / \ | |\/|
| \ | | | , | | | | | | | | , \ , \ / | , | |
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~

__, _, __, __, _ __, _, __,
|_) /_\ |_) |_) | | \ / _ |_
| \ | | |_) |_) | |_/ \ / |
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~

I guess this proves that you are no scientist, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
Ralph, every scientist and engineer knows that every measurement is
not going to be exact, Ralph. Ralph, scientists and engineers keep
track of errors in error bars so they know whether the answers they
come up with are significant or just crap caused by measurement errors,
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph, in the case of the steller deflection
measurements, Ralph, 0.997 is much closer to the 1 predicted by GR than
it is to the 0 predicted by Newtonian physics, Ralph Rabbidge.

>> Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this
>> medium was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" =
>> "superfluous" in your mind?

>The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, 'Superfluous' explicitly states that it has
no effect whatsoever, meaning aether, if it even existed, has no effect
on the outcome, including being the reason for P2, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
Again, Ralph, blaming the aether for P2 is a flaw in YOUR thinking, not
Einstein's, Ralph. Ralph, you are projecting your shortcoming onto
Einstein, Ralph. BTW, Ralph, such projection is frequently associated
with insanity, the insane frequently project their faults onto others,
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

>> Do you understand why your comment reinforces the correct assessment
>> that you are nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane,
>> four spades short of a full deck?

>Your description would fit the average dingleberry perfectly...

As followers of Herbert Dingle (also known as Dingleberries in his
honor) are anti-relativists, yes, Ralph, this discription does describe
Dingleberries such as yourself, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
Ralph, many other Dingleberries here, such as Valev and Wozniak, match
this description perfectly, Ralph.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 29/07/16 08:46, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 4:24:16 PM UTC-6, HGW. wrote:

>>> Hipparcos has measured the apparent positions of thousands of stars
>>> with extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made
>>> by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find
>>> how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun.
>>>
>>> These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation
>>> above and gamma can be determined.
>>>
>>> The result is that gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003
>>
>> What was the telescope's reference for direction, Paul?
>

> So Henrie-boy doesn't understand the first thing about spacecraft orientation

> technology. That's to be expected because he is profoundly ignorant about
> science.

I take that to mean you have no answer and it cannot measure the
deflection.

>>> This means that the measured angles are very close to
>>> the prediction of GR, and twice the Newtonian prediction.

>>

>> Paul, any experiment where a desired answer is known and which involves
>> statistics is not worth worth a piece of bear shit.....particularly if
>> it is performed by a bunch of desperate dingleberries.
>

> Henrie-boy is the standard desperate Dingle wannabe. His claim proves

> that his felonious variable star mischaracterization since he knows the
> answer he wants to get before he starts. Then he invents a theory that
> incoherent light can interfere with other incoherent light, which is
> completely contrary to experimental and theoretical physics.

Don't lie, goofy. I have never said it interferes with it. It interacts
with it....but only after long periods and in deep vacuum.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 29/07/16 13:09, Michael Moron-y wrote:
> "HGW." <hw@....> writes:

>

>> The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist.
>

> Henry, 'Superfluous' explicitly states that it has

> no effect whatsoever, meaning aether, if it even existed, has no effect

> on the outcome, including being the reason for P2, Henry George Wilson.

Poor fellow! The only non-superfluous function of the (non-existent)
aether was its ability to unify the speed of light emitted by all
sources. By assuming its existence, Einstein was able to include source
independence in his postulate and then state that it was superfluous.

> Again, Henry, blaming the aether for P2 is a flaw in YOUR thinking, not
> Einstein's, Henry. Henry, you are projecting your shortcoming onto
> Einstein, Henry.

Please don't write my name right next to Einstein's please. I find that
offensive ...and I don't want his already false image to benefit from
any inferred association.

[kenseto]

But his inertial frame has all the exclusive properties of the aether frame. So his declaration that the need for the aether is superfluous is laughable.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/28/16 7/28/16 - 6:09 PM, HGW. wrote:
> On 29/07/16 02:27, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 7/27/16 7/27/16 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote:
>>> Einstein's whole theory is based
>>> on the existence of one universal light carrying medium that is
>>> supposed to
>>> unify the speed of light from all sources... commonly referred to as
>>> the aether.
>>
>> This is just plain not true.
>>
>> This is apparently part of the complex FANTASY world that Wilson has
>> concocted for himself. It is completely unrelated to the real world, the
>> one we all inhabit.
>

> [... HGW just describes his fantasy that SR is based on aether]

>
> If you know of any other mechanism that could unify all light speeds then y0ou
> should share it with the rest of the world......and please don't just say it
> comes from 'spacetime geometry'. Your version of spacetime is BASED ON the
> assumption that all light speeds are unified already.

The vacuum speed of light is c relative to any (locally) inertial frame because
of an internal symmetry of spacetime. This geometry is NOT AT ALL "BASED ON the
assumption that all light speeds are unified already", as it can be derived and
defined independent of all electrodynamics.

Due to historical accident, Einstein in 1905 based his
derivation on the assumption that the speed of light is
independent of the motion of its source. Today we don't
need that assumption to derive the Lorentz transforms,
we use SYMMETRY instead.

>> Certainly the >10,000 particle physicists use SR daily, and
>> the thousands of physicists working in modern cosmology and
>> astrophysics use GR daily.
>
> There are not.

Nonsense. You just display your personal ignorance. AGAIN. There most definitely
are > 10,000 particle physicists in the world, and we do use SR daily in our
work. There are indeed thousands of physicists working in cosmology and
astrophysics who use GR daily.

But I am discussing the real world we inhabit, not your
personal fantasy world. So YOU probably won't understand
(because you clearly cannot distinguish between them and
think your fantasy is real).


Tom Roberts

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/28/2016 5:12 PM, HGW. wrote:
> On 28/07/16 23:55, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/27/2016 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Well the experiments might not always be faked but the
>>> interpretations of the result certainly are.
>>
>> If there are two numbers with error bars, there is no possibility of
>> fakery. They either agree or they don't agree. It is not possible to
>> MISINTERPRET a confirmed experimental result so that it mistakenly
>> agrees with a theory.
>
> Error bars have no place in physics.

Henry, shame on you. Even in 19th century physics, which you adore,
experimental physicists knew better than to quote a measured result
without an error bar. Every freshman physics student learning 19th
century physics learns in teaching laboratories that reporting results
without error bars is a no-no.

I assumed you had taken freshman physics and learned these basic
experimental skills.

> There is only right or wrong.
>
> Statistics is the fakers right hand.
>
>>> Bodkin, in case you are not aware of the fact, Einstein's whole
>>> theory is based on the existence of one universal light carrying
>>> medium that is supposed to unify the speed of light from all
>>> sources.
>>
>> Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this
>> medium was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" =
>> "superfluous" in your mind?
>
> The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist.

Only that it's not needed. But you claimed it was central to the theory.
That is, needed. In fact, you said within the same sentence that the
medium was not needed AND needed. Do you understand how this makes you look?

> If you understood how Poincare developed Einstein SR almost word for
> word, you would know what I am talking about.
>
>> Do you understand why your comment reinforces the correct assessment
>> that you are nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane,
>> four spades short of a full deck?
>
> Your description would fit the average dingleberry perfectly...
>
>
>


--

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/29/2016 9:02 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this medium
>> > was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = "superfluous" in
>> > your mind?
> But his inertial frame has all the exclusive properties of the aether frame.

That's YOUR assertion that those properties are exclusive to the aether
frame.

It's like asserting that having wings is exclusive to angels, and
therefore hummingbirds are angels.

> So his declaration that the need for the aether is superfluous is laughable.
>

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:16:54 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> On 29/07/16 08:46, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 4:24:16 PM UTC-6, HGW. wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hipparcos has measured the apparent positions of thousands of stars
> > > > with extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made
> > > > by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find
> > > > how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun.
> > > >
> > > > These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation
> > > > above and gamma can be determined.
> > > >
> > > > The result is that gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003
> > >
> > > What was the telescope's reference for direction, Paul?
> >

> > So Stupid Ralphie-boy doesn't understand the first thing about spacecraft

> > orientation technology. That's to be expected because he is profoundly
> > ignorant about science.
>
> I take that to mean you have no answer and it cannot measure the
> deflection.

You take it stupidly wrong, as you always do with everything. The usual
technique for orientation of spacecraft uses two stars. If you didn't
know that, you are stupid. Hipparcos requires better stability than that
since the directions to those very stars is affected by the sun's
gravity. It is very easy to find how it was done, but you are too
stupidly lazy to do it yourself.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027311779190465V

"The possibility to build a uniform and rigid reference frame across the
whole sky depends entirely on this coupling. The reduction of the main
data stream, concerned with 118,000 preselected stars, is made in parallel
by two independent scientific consortia (FAST and NDAC)"

> > > Paul, any experiment where a desired answer is known and which involves
> > > statistics is not worth worth a piece of bear shit.....particularly if
> > > it is performed by a bunch of desperate dingleberries.
> >

> > Stupid Ralphie-boy is the standard desperate Dingle wannabe. His claim

> > proves that his felonious variable star mischaracterization since he
> > knows the answer he wants to get before he starts. Then he invents a
> > theory that incoherent light can interfere with other incoherent light,
> > which is completely contrary to experimental and theoretical physics.
>
> Don't lie, goofy. I have never said it interferes with it. It interacts
> with it....but only after long periods and in deep vacuum.

"Interacts with it" is tantamount to lying. There is NO experimental
evidence that supports such a goofy claim. You have invented a garbage
gobbledegook foolishness to support your stupidly idiotic beliefs. You
are abysmally stupid.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 30/07/16 00:06, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/28/2016 5:12 PM, HGW. wrote:
>> On 28/07/16 23:55, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2016 6:12 PM, HGW. wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Well the experiments might not always be faked but the
>>>> interpretations of the result certainly are.
>>>
>>> If there are two numbers with error bars, there is no possibility of
>>> fakery. They either agree or they don't agree. It is not possible to
>>> MISINTERPRET a confirmed experimental result so that it mistakenly
>>> agrees with a theory.
>>
>> Error bars have no place in physics.
>
> Henry, shame on you. Even in 19th century physics, which you adore,
> experimental physicists knew better than to quote a measured result
> without an error bar. Every freshman physics student learning 19th
> century physics learns in teaching laboratories that reporting results
> without error bars is a no-no.

Bodkin, physicists conceive new concepts, devise new experiments and
work out how to interpret them. The lackeys like Paul Andersen, PD and
Tom Roberts do all that routine measuring stuff.

> I assumed you had taken freshman physics and learned these basic
> experimental skills.
>
>> There is only right or wrong.
>>
>> Statistics is the fakers right hand.

>> The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist.
>
> Only that it's not needed. But you claimed it was central to the theory.
> That is, needed. In fact, you said within the same sentence that the
> medium was not needed AND needed. Do you understand how this makes you
> look?

It IS just as central to Einstein's plagiarized version of Poincare's
theory as it was in the original Lorentz's.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 30/07/16 00:04, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/28/16 7/28/16 - 6:09 PM, HGW. wrote:

>> If you know of any other mechanism that could unify all light speeds
>> then y0ou
>> should share it with the rest of the world......and please don't just
>> say it
>> comes from 'spacetime geometry'. Your version of spacetime is BASED ON
>> the
>> assumption that all light speeds are unified already.
>
> The vacuum speed of light is c relative to any (locally) inertial frame
> because of an internal symmetry of spacetime. This geometry is NOT AT
> ALL "BASED ON the assumption that all light speeds are unified already",
> as it can be derived and defined independent of all electrodynamics.

There you go again....using circular logic. You are talking about the
geometry of Minkowski spacetime which is based entirely on what you are
trying to prove. Can't you see how silly you are?

Newtonian spacetime...ie., true realativity... applies to electrodynamics.

> Due to historical accident, Einstein in 1905 based his
> derivation on the assumption that the speed of light is
> independent of the motion of its source. Today we don't
> need that assumption to derive the Lorentz transforms,
> we use SYMMETRY instead.

Bullshit. Your 'symmetry' is based on Einstein's second postulate.
..circular logic again.
Without an aether, where is the physical mechanism that unifies light
speeds?

>>> Certainly the >10,000 particle physicists use SR daily, and
>>> the thousands of physicists working in modern cosmology and
>>> astrophysics use GR daily.
>>
>> There are not.
>
> Nonsense. You just display your personal ignorance. AGAIN. There most
> definitely are > 10,000 particle physicists in the world, and we do use
> SR daily in our work. There are indeed thousands of physicists working
> in cosmology and astrophysics who use GR daily.

...and fortunately, the resulting errors are too small to do any
irreparable damage.

> But I am discussing the real world we inhabit, not your
> personal fantasy world. So YOU probably won't understand
> (because you clearly cannot distinguish between them and
> think your fantasy is real).

Well I worked in six physics research labs and I never heard the name of
Einstein being used by anyone.

> Tom Roberts

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 30/07/16 00:32, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:16:54 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>
>> On 29/07/16 08:46, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 4:24:16 PM UTC-6, HGW. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hipparcos has measured the apparent positions of thousands of stars
>>>>> with extreme precision. There are many millions of measurements made
>>>>> by Hipparcos, and among these measurements it is possible to find
>>>>> how the light from a high number of stars are deflected by the Sun.
>>>>>
>>>>> These measured deflections can then be compared to the equation
>>>>> above and gamma can be determined.
>>>>>
>>>>> The result is that gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003
>>>>
>>>> What was the telescope's reference for direction, Paul?
>>>
>>> So Stupid Ralphie-boy doesn't understand the first thing about spacecraft
>>> orientation technology. That's to be expected because he is profoundly
>>> ignorant about science.
>>
>> I take that to mean you have no answer and it cannot measure the
>> deflection.
>
> You take it stupidly wrong, as you always do with everything. The usual
> technique for orientation of spacecraft uses two stars. If you didn't
> know that, you are stupid. Hipparcos requires better stability than that
> since the directions to those very stars is affected by the sun's
> gravity. It is very easy to find how it was done, but you are too
> stupidly lazy to do it yourself.

Bullshit. Anyone who knew what Einstein's theory predicts could easily
manipulate the observations to come up with that answer. They are
nowhere near accurate enough.

> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027311779190465V
>
> "The possibility to build a uniform and rigid reference frame across the
> whole sky depends entirely on this coupling. The reduction of the main
> data stream, concerned with 118,000 preselected stars, is made in parallel
> by two independent scientific consortia (FAST and NDAC)"

Science direct is a commercial dingleberry establishment organization.

>>>> Paul, any experiment where a desired answer is known and which involves
>>>> statistics is not worth worth a piece of bear shit.....particularly if
>>>> it is performed by a bunch of desperate dingleberries.

>> Don't lie, goofy. I have never said it interferes with it. It interacts
>> with it....but only after long periods and in deep vacuum.
>
> "Interacts with it" is tantamount to lying. There is NO experimental
> evidence that supports such a goofy claim. You have invented a garbage
> gobbledegook foolishness to support your stupidly idiotic beliefs. You
> are abysmally stupid.

Idiot, haven't you seen what happens to an electric field in high
vacuum? Does a photon possess an electric field?

Why don't you give up physics and concentrate on your
'some-imaginary-god-runs-the-whole-show' philosophy?

[kenseto]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:21:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/29/2016 9:02 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >> Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this medium
> >> > was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = "superfluous" in
> >> > your mind?
> > But his inertial frame has all the exclusive properties of the aether frame.
>
> That's YOUR assertion that those properties are exclusive to the aether
> frame.

By definition constant isotropy of the speed of light is assumed to be the properties of a stationary aether. Sony frame that have the same isotropy of the speed of light is assumed to be in the aether frame.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/29/2016 2:45 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:21:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/29/2016 9:02 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>> Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this medium
>>>>> was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = "superfluous" in
>>>>> your mind?
>>> But his inertial frame has all the exclusive properties of the aether frame.
>>
>> That's YOUR assertion that those properties are exclusive to the aether
>> frame.
>
> By definition constant isotropy of the speed of light is assumed to be the
> properties of a stationary aether.

Isotropy of the speed of light is not a property that is EXCLUSIVE to
the aether frame. It is true of other cases.

Likewise, having four legs is a property of a cow. But it isn't a
property EXCLUSIVE to cows, and it is also true of other animals. Thus
it would be a mistake to say that any animal that has four legs, like a
cat, is then a cow.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 30/07/16 05:45, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:21:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>> But his inertial frame has all the exclusive properties of the
>>> aether frame.
>>
>> That's YOUR assertion that those properties are exclusive to the
>> aether frame.
>
> By definition constant isotropy of the speed of light is assumed to

> be the properties of a stationary aether. So any frame that have the

> same isotropy of the speed of light is assumed to be in the aether
> frame.

That's not the right interpretation. What happened was that after the
LTs were devised to (falsely) explain the MMX result, it was shown by
people like Lamour, Poincare and Lorentz that all attempts to measure
OWLS would produce the answer c, irrespective of direction of
measurement or the absolute speed of the apparatus. That came about
after consideration of simultaneity, clock synching, time dilation and
all the other factors that Einstein was able to directly plagiarize on
his climb to unworthy fame.

I still reckon there is a flaw in that argument somewhere. I don't see
how it works if v is not <<c.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 30/07/16 06:19, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/29/2016 2:45 PM, kenseto wrote:

>
> Likewise, having four legs is a property of a cow. But it isn't a
> property EXCLUSIVE to cows, and it is also true of other animals. Thus
> it would be a mistake to say that any animal that has four legs, like a
> cat, is then a cow.

Bodkin, you have inadvertently drawn attention to an interesting question.
Why is it that, like your wooden tables and chairs, cows and cats have
evolved with four legs and not three, the latter which would give them
much better stability irrespective of terrain?
(I suppose polar bears could have four legs because the surface of ice
is pretty flat.)

Maybe you should consider specializing in the manufacture of three
legged wooden furniture? Who knows? You might become as famous as
Einstein if you do....

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/29/2016 3:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 30/07/16 06:19, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/29/2016 2:45 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
>>
>> Likewise, having four legs is a property of a cow. But it isn't a
>> property EXCLUSIVE to cows, and it is also true of other animals. Thus
>> it would be a mistake to say that any animal that has four legs, like a
>> cat, is then a cow.
>
> Bodkin, you have inadvertently drawn attention to an interesting question.
> Why is it that, like your wooden tables and chairs, cows and cats have
> evolved with four legs and not three, the latter which would give them
> much better stability irrespective of terrain?

First of all, I make and sell a lot of three-legged chairs and tables.
There's actually a good reason three is not common for a table. Tables
have a lot of surface area. Reducing the number of legs means the
distance between the legs is greater, or you're going to have more of a
cantilevered edge. More distance between table legs weakens the
structure and three-legged tables get wobbly joints faster. Furthermore,
it's a lot harder to design a table with an expansion leaf when it has
an odd number of legs. Having three legs works great for smaller surface
areas like stools.

As for animals, there are lots of animals that do not have bilateral
symmetry -- sea stars for example. But the presence of a notochord and
then a vertebral column came with bilateral symmetry. Since then, an
even number of limbs is a natural outcome. Furthermore, a three-legged
animal is only more stable on irregular terrain if it stands still. But
animals are mobile, which means that it has to lift at least one of
those legs to run or walk. If it had only three legs, lifting one would
reduce you to two in contact, which is not particularly stable. If you
look at a galloping animal, you'll notice that the planting stride
usually involves three of the four feet, with the fourth foot still
coming down, and when the fourth has made contact, one of the others
almost immediately comes up or has just left the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-x6TPv3-So

Like many of the things you say, had you spent maybe two minutes more
thinking about it before blurting out a comment, you'd end up probably
not making the comment.

> (I suppose polar bears could have four legs because the surface of ice
> is pretty flat.)
>
> Maybe you should consider specializing in the manufacture of three
> legged wooden furniture? Who knows? You might become as famous as
> Einstein if you do....
>

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 1:29:51 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> On 30/07/16 00:32, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > You take it stupidly wrong, as you always do with everything. The usual
> > technique for orientation of spacecraft uses two stars. If you didn't
> > know that, you are stupid. Hipparcos requires better stability than that
> > since the directions to those very stars is affected by the sun's
> > gravity. It is very easy to find how it was done, but you are too
> > stupidly lazy to do it yourself.
>
> Bullshit. Anyone who knew what Einstein's theory predicts could easily
> manipulate the observations to come up with that answer. They are
> nowhere near accurate enough.

Anyone who knows the answer he wants to get to refute variable star
theory can come up with his own arm-waving baloney to come up with
an alternate (but wrong) "explanation."

> > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027311779190465V
> >
> > "The possibility to build a uniform and rigid reference frame across the
> > whole sky depends entirely on this coupling. The reduction of the main
> > data stream, concerned with 118,000 preselected stars, is made in parallel
> > by two independent scientific consortia (FAST and NDAC)"
>
> Science direct is a commercial dingleberry establishment organization.

"Henry Wilson" is a stupidly-dogmatic pseudonym for an unscientific
Ralphie-boy.

> > > Don't lie, goofy. I have never said it interferes with it. It interacts
> > > with it....but only after long periods and in deep vacuum.
> >
> > "Interacts with it" is tantamount to lying. There is NO experimental
> > evidence that supports such a goofy claim. You have invented a garbage
> > gobbledegook foolishness to support your stupidly idiotic beliefs. You
> > are abysmally stupid.
>
> Idiot, haven't you seen what happens to an electric field in high
> vacuum?

Yep. Nothing whatever.

> Does a photon possess an electric field?

Yes, it does. And a magnetic field, too.

> Why don't you give up physics and concentrate on your
> 'some-imaginary-god-runs-the-whole-show' philosophy?

Why don't you give up your abysmally-stupid variable star fantasy and take
up a study of reality?

[Michael Moroney]

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 29/07/16 13:09, Michael Moron-y wrote:
>> "HGW." <hw@....> writes:

>>
>>> The word 'Superfluous' does not imply that it does not exist.
>>
>> Henry, 'Superfluous' explicitly states that it has
>> no effect whatsoever, meaning aether, if it even existed, has no effect
>> on the outcome, including being the reason for P2, Henry George Wilson.

____ _ _
| _ \ __ _| |_ __ | |__
| |_) / _` | | '_ \| '_ \
| _ < (_| | | |_) | | | |
|_| \_\__,_|_| .__/|_| |_|
|_|
__ __ _ _
| \/ | __ _| | ___ ___ | |_ __ ___
| |\/| |/ _` | |/ __/ _ \| | '_ ` _ \
| | | | (_| | | (_| (_) | | | | | | |
|_| |_|\__,_|_|\___\___/|_|_| |_| |_|
____ _ _ _ _
| _ \ __ _| |__ | |__ (_) __| | __ _ ___
| |_) / _` | '_ \| '_ \| |/ _` |/ _` |/ _ \
| _ < (_| | |_) | |_) | | (_| | (_| | __/_
|_| \_\__,_|_.__/|_.__/|_|\__,_|\__, |\___( )
|___/ |/

cut it out, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

>Poor fellow! The only
non-superfluous function of the (non-existent)
>aether was its ability to unify the speed of light emitted by all
>sources. By assuming its existence, Einstein was able to include source
>independence in his postulate and then state that it was superfluous.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, there is simply no need for any aether to assume
P2, Ralph. Ralph, one simply assumes P2, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph, that
is exactly what Einstein did, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, he simply dispensed
with the aether and assumed P2, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, maybe
your feeble mind needs an aether to comprehend P2, but don't project
your needs onto Einstein, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph, that type
of projection is a sign of mental illness, Ralph.

>> Again, Henry, blaming the aether for P2 is a flaw in YOUR thinking, not
>> Einstein's, Henry. Henry, you are projecting your shortcoming onto
>> Einstein, Henry.

>Please don't write my name right next to Einstein's please.

Ralph, you mean when I wrote "Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge" next to Einstein's
name, Ralph? Ralph, it was YOU not me who wrote "Henry Wilson" next to
Einstein's name, Ralph, but you blamed me for writing "Ralph Malcolm
Rabbidge" there, Ralph. At least you finally admit your name is "Ralph
Malcolm Rabbidge" and not "Henry Wilson" by blaming me, Ralph.

BTW Ralph, why are you so ashamed of your name "Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge"?

> I find that
>offensive

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you're right, Ralph, writing the name "Einstein"
near "Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge" is a definite insult to the name of
Einstein, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I'll try not to do so as much
from now on, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

[Paul B. Andersen]

You can check the reality here:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Michael Moroney]

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, it's obviously not "central" since Einstein
explicitly dispenses with the aether right up front and never referred
to it again, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, nor did he use any theory that
depended on the aether, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

>>> If you understood how Poincare developed Einstein SR almost word for
>>> word, you would know what I am talking about.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, Einstein derived the Lorentz math separately and
that is what made his theory stand out, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph,
for the first time, there was a theory with no need for the aether, Ralph.
That is why Einstein's SR is important, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 29.07.2016 00:12, HGW. wrote:
>
> Error bars have no place in physics.

> There is only right or wrong.
>

:-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Michael Moroney]

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 30/07/16 00:04, Tom Roberts wrote:

>> Nonsense. You just display your personal ignorance. AGAIN. There most
>> definitely are > 10,000 particle physicists in the world, and we do use
>> SR daily in our work.

"We", Tom? Cool, tell us what you do.

>Well I worked in six physics research labs and I never heard the name of
>Einstein being used by anyone.

So Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you were the janitor for a research lab
building, Ralph?

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:29:49 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

> >Well I worked in six physics research labs and I never heard the name of
> >Einstein being used by anyone.
>
> So Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you were the janitor for a research lab
> building, Ralph?

So far as his *published* work goes, it mostly seems to revolve around various
aspects of soil chemistry. But some years ago I seem to recollect seeing his
name associated with a solar observatory or something???

https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/33/2/SS0330020196

http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/GEOTECH/PAGES/GTJ100731.htm

https://www.google.ch/patents/US3455147

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US3455147.pdf

Peck, A. J., and R. M. Rabbidge. "l966." The population composition of a spider community in west central Missouri. Amer. Midi. Nat 76: 150-l67.

Rabbidge, R. M. The Effects of Shading Devices on Internal Illumination. Commonwealth Experimental Building Station, 1965.

Peck, A. J., and R. M. Rabbidge. 1966. Soil-water potential: direct measurement
by a new technique. Science 151(3716) 1385-1386

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

Publication: The Brandon Sun
Location: Brandon, Canada
Issue Date: Tuesday, February 8, 1966
Page: Page 8

CANBERRA (Reuters) A research physicist employed by the Australian government
claims to have invented a flying saucer and believes he has beaten a California
professor in patenting it. R. M. Rabbidge, a research officer with the
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial . Organization, said his invention was
brought to light after a newspaper reported that Prof. Paul S. Moller of the
University of California was building a flying saucer. "It's highly embarrassing
to say that you have invented a flying saucer," the physicist said. "People
think you are a nut." He said he took out a provisional patent on the flying
saucer after a series of experiments with small models. "My invention is similar
to a saucer spinning upside down with air drawn in through a hole at the top,
spun to the sides over a stationary cabin in the middle, and forced out at the
bottom. "The principle is similar to that of "a plate sent spinning through the
air."

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/30/16 7/30/16 1:28 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> There most
>>> definitely are > 10,000 particle physicists in the world, and we do use
>>> SR daily in our work.
>
> "We", Tom? Cool, tell us what you do.

I am the author of the particle simulation program G4beamline, which is used by
>500 physicists for designing and evaluating beam lines and related systems,
especially ones using muons. I am a particle physicist with interest in muon
colliders, neutrino factories, and other muon physics; I am a member of the
Fermilab Mu2E experiment. My interest is moving toward accelerator driven
subcritical reactors, as they offer the best approach to nuclear safety and the
only sensible approach to handling nuclear waste (which they turn into fuel and
burn, rather than store for 100,000 years). I am on the faculty of IIT and am
part of a team developing an experiment to measure the gravitational interaction
of antimatter, specifically muonium.


Tom Roberts

[kenseto]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 4:19:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/29/2016 2:45 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:21:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/29/2016 9:02 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>> Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this medium
> >>>>> was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = "superfluous" in
> >>>>> your mind?
> >>> But his inertial frame has all the exclusive properties of the aether frame.
> >>
> >> That's YOUR assertion that those properties are exclusive to the aether
> >> frame.
> >
> > By definition constant isotropy of the speed of light is assumed to be the
> > properties of a stationary aether.
>
> Isotropy of the speed of light is not a property that is EXCLUSIVE to
> the aether frame. It is true of other cases.

It is exclusive for the aether frame. Einstein hijacked it for the inertial frame. No true inertial frame exists on earth.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/30/2016 1:28 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Well I worked in six physics research labs and I never heard the name of
>> >Einstein being used by anyone.
> So Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you were the janitor for a research lab
> building, Ralph?

All you have to do is Google Ralph M Rabbidge to find out the kind of
physics he was involved with. And then it's pretty clear why the work
would not involve Einstein. I'm pretty sure the paint R&D department at
Sherwin Williams doesn't mention Einstein either.

[Michael Moroney]

Interesting. Of note that even if Ralph was in a related field, the name
of Einstein wouldn't come up much. Scientists simply would use SR or GR
without naming names. Consider an electrical engineer or something. The
_names_ of the physicists that developed electrical theory (referring to
the people, Volta, Faraday etc.) very rarely come up. Of course the units
named for those people (volt, farad etc.) come up all the time. But there
is no unit called the einstein. Perhaps we can create the einstein unit,
as a unit of the kookiness of physics cranks? For example, we measure
Valev as 7.3 einsteins of kookiness but Rabbidge only measures 4.9
einsteins of kookiness.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/30/2016 12:56 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:

>
> Interesting. Of note that even if Ralph was in a related field, the name
> of Einstein wouldn't come up much. Scientists simply would use SR or GR
> without naming names. Consider an electrical engineer or something. The
> _names_ of the physicists that developed electrical theory (referring to
> the people, Volta, Faraday etc.) very rarely come up. Of course the units
> named for those people (volt, farad etc.) come up all the time. But there
> is no unit called the einstein. Perhaps we can create the einstein unit,
> as a unit of the kookiness of physics cranks? For example, we measure
> Valev as 7.3 einsteins of kookiness but Rabbidge only measures 4.9
> einsteins of kookiness.
>

I would think the unit of kookiness would be the dingle. There's a
question of establishing scale and the unit. With the obvious
convention, then Valev and Rabbidge would be in the vicinity of a few
hundred kilodingles. Seto is well over a Md, as is Wozniak and McGinn,
which is why they aren't allowed in public.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Tom, you forgot to mention that you are a senior publicity agents of the
conspiracy to keep the name Einstein on top of the world's intellectual
ladder.

> Tom Roberts

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Harnagel's version of reality: Some god thing made the world six
thousand years ago. It put all those fossils in the rocks just for a joke".

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 30/07/16 07:29, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/29/2016 3:34 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> On 30/07/16 06:19, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 7/29/2016 2:45 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Likewise, having four legs is a property of a cow. But it isn't
>>> a property EXCLUSIVE to cows, and it is also true of other
>>> animals. Thus it would be a mistake to say that any animal that
>>> has four legs, like a cat, is then a cow.
>>
>> Bodkin, you have inadvertently drawn attention to an interesting
>> question. Why is it that, like your wooden tables and chairs, cows
>> and cats have evolved with four legs and not three, the latter
>> which would give them much better stability irrespective of
>> terrain?
>
> First of all, I make and sell a lot of three-legged chairs and
> tables. There's actually a good reason three is not common for a
> table. Tables have a lot of surface area.

maybe that's why you have never found the time to learn basic physics.

> Reducing the number of legs means the distance between the legs is
> greater, or you're going to have more of a cantilevered edge. More
> distance between table legs weakens the structure and three-legged
> tables get wobbly joints faster. Furthermore, it's a lot harder to
> design a table with an expansion leaf when it has an odd number of
> legs. Having three legs works great for smaller surface areas like
> stools.

> As for animals, there are lots of animals that do not have bilateral
> symmetry -- sea stars for example. But the presence of a notochord
> and then a vertebral column came with bilateral symmetry. Since then,
> an even number of limbs is a natural outcome. Furthermore, a
> three-legged animal is only more stable on irregular terrain if it
> stands still. But animals are mobile, which means that it has to lift
> at least one of those legs to run or walk. If it had only three legs,
> lifting one would reduce you to two in contact, which is not
> particularly stable. If you look at a galloping animal, you'll notice
> that the planting stride usually involves three of the four feet,
> with the fourth foot still coming down, and when the fourth has made
> contact, one of the others almost immediately comes up or has just
> left the ground. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-x6TPv3-So

Bodkin, you amaze me. Didn't your mommy teach you to stand upright on
two legs? ...or do you fall flat on your face every time you lift one
foot of the ground?

> Like many of the things you say, had you spent maybe two minutes more
> thinking about it before blurting out a comment, you'd end up
> probably not making the comment.

There are no three legged animals for no particularly obvious reasons.
There are no three-eyed humans yet, either, even though one in the back
of one's head could provide considerable selective advantages. It will
happen one day I'm sure.

>> (I suppose polar bears could have four legs because the surface of
>> ice is pretty flat.)
>>
>> Maybe you should consider specializing in the manufacture of three
>> legged wooden furniture? Who knows? You might become as famous as
>> Einstein if you do....

I have several three legged stools in my electrical lab.
I made a three legged coffee table for my lounge.

>

[HGWilson, DSc.]

I am quite aware of the fact that the conspirators have amassed a huge
amount of 'evidence' to support their idol. Not one of those papers is
at all convincing...and it is pretty obvious that after 111 years, you
people are still desperately trying to find evidence that any of
Einstein's crap is true.

Why does anyone continue to perform so many different experiments if
each one proves the nonsense correct? The fact that so many people are
still performing experiments they think might support Einstein's theory
is virtual proof that they all still have grave doubts about it.

Why is it that every time something new comes up in physics we are told
immediately "this adds further support for Einstein's theory of
gravitation"...when if one looks closely, there is no specific
connection at all? It is bloody obvious that there has been a gigantic
conspiracy and a cover up.

There is no way light speed can be source dependent...end of story...

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

You misunderstand. People are desperately trying to find where Einstein's
theories will FAIL, because it is only with failure that there is any hope of
discovering the theory that will replace relativity. We need data that
CONTRADICTS Einstein. THAT is why experiments get redesigned for greater and
greater accuracy. THAT is why so many people are still performing experiments
they think might DISPROVE Einstein's theory. We KNOW that there is a fundamental
standoff between GR and QM, but we don't have NUMBERS.

> Why is it that every time something new comes up in physics we are told
> immediately "this adds further support for Einstein's theory of
> gravitation"...when if one looks closely, there is no specific
> connection at all? It is bloody obvious that there has been a gigantic
> conspiracy and a cover up.
>
> There is no way light speed can be source dependent...end of story...

Well, well, well. Look at what you just wrote. Congratulations.

[Odd Bodkin]

And is two-legged ambulation stable?

>
>> Like many of the things you say, had you spent maybe two minutes more
>> thinking about it before blurting out a comment, you'd end up
>> probably not making the comment.
>
> There are no three legged animals for no particularly obvious reasons.

This isn't true. There are no three legged MAMMALS, true. But a
three-legged mammal would not have bilateral symmetry, and you'd be hard
pressed to get evolution to produce a vertebral column to support three
legs in a mammal.

> There are no three-eyed humans yet, either, even though one in the back
> of one's head could provide considerable selective advantages. It will
> happen one day I'm sure.
>
>>> (I suppose polar bears could have four legs because the surface of
>>> ice is pretty flat.)
>>>
>>> Maybe you should consider specializing in the manufacture of three
>>> legged wooden furniture? Who knows? You might become as famous as
>>> Einstein if you do....
>
> I have several three legged stools in my electrical lab.

Yes, as I said, three legged stools are a good application for the
reason that three legged tables are not so good.

> I made a three legged coffee table for my lounge.
>
>>
>

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 01/08/16 00:18, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 7:57:04 AM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> On 30/07/16 16:22, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>>> You can check the reality here:
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
>>
>> I am quite aware of the fact that the conspirators have amassed a huge
>> amount of 'evidence' to support their idol. Not one of those papers is
>> at all convincing...and it is pretty obvious that after 111 years, you
>> people are still desperately trying to find evidence that any of
>> Einstein's crap is true.
>>
>> Why does anyone continue to perform so many different experiments if
>> each one proves the nonsense correct? The fact that so many people are
>> still performing experiments they think might support Einstein's theory
>> is virtual proof that they all still have grave doubts about it.
>
> You misunderstand. People are desperately trying to find where Einstein's
> theories will FAIL, because it is only with failure that there is any hope of
> discovering the theory that will replace relativity. We need data that
> CONTRADICTS Einstein. THAT is why experiments get redesigned for greater and
> greater accuracy. THAT is why so many people are still performing experiments
> they think might DISPROVE Einstein's theory. We KNOW that there is a fundamental
> standoff between GR and QM, but we don't have NUMBERS.

......No need to delve even deeper into the realms of SciFi....Variable
stars make great moving sources for comparing light speeds. ...and guess
what? They show quite conclusively that their light moves at c+v towards
us...at least for part tof its journey.

>
>> Why is it that every time something new comes up in physics we are told
>> immediately "this adds further support for Einstein's theory of
>> gravitation"...when if one looks closely, there is no specific
>> connection at all? It is bloody obvious that there has been a gigantic
>> conspiracy and a cover up.
>>
>> There is no way light speed can be source dependent...end of story...
>
> Well, well, well. Look at what you just wrote. Congratulations.

Obvious typo....it cannot be anything but source dependent if there is
no aether to unify it.
>

[Michael Moroney]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 7:57:04 AM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> There is no way light speed can be source dependent...end of story...

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you just had a fleeting moment of non-insanity
there, Ralph. Ralph, so what happened to cause that, Ralph?

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 31.07.2016 14:57, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 30/07/16 16:22, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>

>> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

>
> Why does anyone continue to perform so many different experiments if
> each one proves the nonsense correct?

An obvious typo?
The fully qualified physicist Doctor Ralph Malcom Rabbidge
obviously knows that no experiment can prove a theory 'true'.

> The fact that so many people are
> still performing experiments they think might support Einstein's theory
> is virtual proof that they all still have grave doubts about it.

Quite. That's better.
You have obviously understood that any experiment testing SR/GR
is an attempt to falsify it. Mmany people are still trying
to falsify SR/GR.

But despite the fact that so many people still are performing
experiments which could falsify SR/GR if it was wrong,
nobody has succeeded.



--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 01/08/16 17:39, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 31.07.2016 14:57, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> On 30/07/16 16:22, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
>>
>> Why does anyone continue to perform so many different experiments
>> if each one proves the nonsense correct?
>

> An obvious typo? The fully qualified physicist Doctor Henry George
> Wilson obviously knows that no experiment can prove a theory 'true'.

I am certainly aware of the fact that no experiment has ever
supported Einstein's second postulate. No experiment ever will because
it is pure bullshit.

>
>> The fact that so many people are still performing experiments they
>> think might support Einstein's theory is virtual proof that they
>> all still have grave doubts about it.
>
> Quite. That's better. You have obviously understood that any

> experiment testing SR/GR is an attempt to falsify it. Many people

> are still trying to falsify SR/GR.

But they cannot get funding...and such experiments are very costly

> But despite the fact that so many people still are performing
> experiments which could falsify SR/GR if it was wrong, nobody has
> succeeded.

I have...many times by using orbiting stars as moving light sources. It
cost me nothing.... and I can publish my findings on the internet
without fear of being ostracized by the establishment.

>

[Gary Harnagel]

Rabid Ralphie-boy hasn't a clue what I believe so he just makes stuff up.
It's to be expected, though, since he just makes stuff up about physics,
too. Like this:

> ......No need to delve even deeper into the realms of SciFi....Variable
> stars make great moving sources for comparing light speeds. ...and guess
> what? They show quite conclusively that their light moves at c+v towards
> us...at least for part tof its journey.

Hahahahaha! All it proves is that Ralphie-boy is dumber than dirt.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 02.08.2016 13:41, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 01/08/16 17:39, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 31.07.2016 14:57, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that so many people are still performing experiments they
>>> think might support Einstein's theory is virtual proof that they
>>> all still have grave doubts about it.
>>
>> Quite. That's better. You have obviously understood that any
>> experiment testing SR/GR is an attempt to falsify it. Many people
>> are still trying to falsify SR/GR.
>
> But they cannot get funding...and such experiments are very costly

No funding?
A lot of 'such experiments' have been funded.
Here are a few examples:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
All these experiments had the potential to falsify SR/GR.

Any experiment testing a theory must have the potential
to falsify the theory if the theory is wrong. So any
experiment testing a theory must be an attempt to falsify it.

>> But despite the fact that so many people still are performing
>> experiments which could falsify SR/GR if it was wrong, nobody has
>> succeeded.
>
> I have...many times by using orbiting stars as moving light sources. It
> cost me nothing.... and I can publish my findings on the internet
> without fear of being ostracized by the establishment.

Quite.
As I said- nobody have succeeded in falsifying SR/GR.



--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 03/08/16 23:39, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 02.08.2016 13:41, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> On 01/08/16 17:39, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> On 31.07.2016 14:57, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact that so many people are still performing experiments they
>>>> think might support Einstein's theory is virtual proof that they
>>>> all still have grave doubts about it.
>>>
>>> Quite. That's better. You have obviously understood that any
>>> experiment testing SR/GR is an attempt to falsify it. Many people
>>> are still trying to falsify SR/GR.
>>
>> But they cannot get funding...and such experiments are very costly
>
> No funding?
> A lot of 'such experiments' have been funded.
> Here are a few examples:
> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
> All these experiments had the potential to falsify SR/GR.

Paul, why don't you give up posting this list of silly indirect
experiments that nobody with any intelligence would consider seriously
for one moment. It is well known that anything which appears to support
Einstein will be snapped up by the dingelberry controlled journal system
and published without question.

The very idea that TIME is somehow affected by movement or the presence
of fields is nonsensical for the simple reason that those entities are
defined as functions of time.

> Any experiment testing a theory must have the potential
> to falsify the theory if the theory is wrong. So any
> experiment testing a theory must be an attempt to falsify it.

There is only one worthwhile experiment that will reveal the true
falsity of Einstein's theories...that of directly comparing OWLS from
differently moving sources...and guess what? Orbiting stars make
excellent light sources for that purpose. and a study of their apparent
brightness variability shows quite convincingly that it is generally not
intrinsic but a consequence of their emitted light moving at different
speeds towards our planet.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 2:52:13 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> The very idea that TIME is somehow affected by movement or the presence
> of fields is nonsensical for the simple reason that those entities are
> defined as functions of time.

Too bad that Ralphie-boy ignores reality:

http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/clocks_092810.cfm

"physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters,
or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you
stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase."

Stupid Ralphie-boy just proved that he is stupider than dirt.

Time dilation has been known for real for decades:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v268/n5618/abs/268301a0.html

"The lifetimes of both positive and negative relativistic (γ = 29.33)
muons have been measured in the CERN Muon Storage Ring with the results
τ+ = 64.419 (58) µs, τ− = 64.368 (29) µs The value for positive muons
is in accordance with special relativity and the measured lifetime at
rest"

In fact, this has been known since stupid Ralphie-boy was in diapers.

> There is only one worthwhile experiment that will reveal the true
> falsity of Einstein's theories...that of directly comparing OWLS from
> differently moving sources

Stupidly wrong. Stupid Ralphie-boy has been shown that MANY experiments
refute Brainless Ralphie-boy's stupid BaThWater. Time dilation being
just one type of experiment.

> ...and guess what? Orbiting stars make excellent light sources for that
> purpose.

Yes, they do, but stupid Ralphie-boy is too brainless to draw the proper
conclusion. He prefers to invent some stupidly false unknown "interaction"
to make widely different wavelengths of light cancel out. This, of course,
is pure fantasizing.

> and a study of their apparent brightness variability shows quite
> convincingly

No one is convinced, stupid Ralphie-boy.

> that it is generally not intrinsic but a consequence of their emitted
> light moving at different speeds towards our planet.

Complete fantasy and sheer stupidity.

[Michael Moroney]

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>There is only one worthwhile experiment that will reveal the true
>falsity of Einstein's theories...that of directly comparing OWLS from
>differently moving sources...and guess what? Orbiting stars make
>excellent light sources for that purpose.

Why, yes they do, Ralph. And the lack of bizarre light curves from such
binaries as light from an approaching star catches up to and passes the
light from the same star as it receded, indicates clearly that light from
such stars definitely does not travel at c+v.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 05/08/16 07:08, Gary Harnagel wrote:

...proved that he is even incompetent at behaving like an idiot.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 3:44:31 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> On 05/08/16 07:08, Gary Harnagel wrote (Reconstituted because stupid Ralphie-boy is too dishonest and incompetent to address the facts):

> >
> > Too bad that Ralphie-boy ignores reality:
> >
> > http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/clocks_092810.cfm
> >
> > "physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
> > have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters,
> > or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you
> > stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase."
> >
> > Stupid Ralphie-boy just proved that he is stupider than dirt.

And he is also proved to be profoundly dishonest and incompetent because he
can't address the facts.

> > Time dilation has been known for real for decades:

> > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v268/n5618/abs/268301a0.html
> >
> > "The lifetimes of both positive and negative relativistic (γ = 29.33)
> > muons have been measured in the CERN Muon Storage Ring with the results
> > τ+ = 64.419 (58) µs, τ− = 64.368 (29) µs The value for positive muons
> > is in accordance with special relativity and the measured lifetime at
> > rest"
> >
> > In fact, this has been known since stupid Ralphie-boy was in diapers.
> >

> > > ...and guess what? Orbiting stars make excellent light sources for that
> > > purpose.
> >
> > Yes, they do, but stupid Ralphie-boy is too brainless to draw the proper
> > conclusion. He prefers to invent some stupidly false unknown "interaction"
> > to make widely different wavelengths of light cancel out. This, of course,
> > is pure fantasizing.

Stupid Ralphie-boy can't come up with any facts so he mounts what he thinks
(if you can even call it "thinking") a personal attack instead:

> ...proved that he is even incompetent at behaving like an idiot.

Yes, I am incompetent at behaving like an idiot because YOU are the idiot,
not me. I have more intelligence in the tip of my little finger than you
have in your entire brain. You prove this with every stupid post you make
since ALL of your posts are stupid.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 04.08.2016 22:52, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 03/08/16 23:39, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 02.08.2016 13:41, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>> On 01/08/16 17:39, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>

>>>> Any experiment testing SR/GR is an attempt to falsify it.

>>>> Many people are still trying to falsify SR/GR.
>>>
>>> But they cannot get funding...and such experiments are very costly
>>
>> No funding?
>> A lot of 'such experiments' have been funded.
>> Here are a few examples:
>> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
>> All these experiments had the potential to falsify SR/GR.
>
> Paul, why don't you give up posting this list of silly indirect
> experiments that nobody with any intelligence would consider seriously
> for one moment. It is well known that anything which appears to support
> Einstein will be snapped up by the dingelberry controlled journal system
> and published without question.

It is remarkable that somebody are so unbelievable naive
that they don't understand that they are making
gigantic fools of themselves by claiming that all physicists are
"without any intelligence", and all experiments testing SR/GR
are faked.

Ralph, you can kick and scream all you want,
but the experimental evidence won't go away.
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

> The very idea that TIME is somehow affected by movement or the presence
> of fields is nonsensical for the simple reason that those entities are
> defined as functions of time.

The entity measured by clocks has been behaving as
predicted by GR in all experiments ever performed.
Here are a few of them:
https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf

Ralph, you can kick and scream all you want,
but Nature behaves as she does even if you
find it nonsensical.

>> Any experiment testing a theory must have the potential
>> to falsify the theory if the theory is wrong. So any
>> experiment testing a theory must be an attempt to falsify it.
>
> There is only one worthwhile experiment that will reveal the true
> falsity of Einstein's theories...that of directly comparing OWLS from
> differently moving sources...

The invariance of the speed of light in vacuum
has been tested by several experiments.
Here are a few of them:
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf

Ralph, you can kick and scream all you want,
but the experimental evidence won't go away.

> and guess what? Orbiting stars make
> excellent light sources for that purpose.

Quite.
The observed light curves and spectra of binaries are
in accordance with the predictions of SR/GR.
The crazy light curves and spectra predicted by emission
theories are never observed.

> and a study of their apparent
> brightness variability shows quite convincingly that it is generally not
> intrinsic but a consequence of their emitted light moving at different
> speeds towards our planet.

I challenge you to take the a light curve from a real variable,
and show that it can be a consequence of their emitted light moving

at different speeds towards our planet.

AND:
Show what data you used to produce the light curve.
(distance, orbital frequency, radial velocity etc.)
AND most important:
Show how the emission theory predicts the spectrum of
the star varies during one period (blue shift, red shift),
and compare that to the observed variation of the spectrum.

If you ignore the question about the spectrum (which you
always do by obvious reasons), I will show what the emission
theory predicts the spectrum should be.

---
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 05/08/16 23:43, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 3:44:31 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> Stupid Henrie-boy can't come up with any facts so he mounts what he thinks

> (if you can even call it "thinking") a personal attack instead:
>
>> ...proved that he is even incompetent at behaving like an idiot.
>
> Yes, I am incompetent at behaving like an idiot because YOU are the idiot,
> not me. I have more intelligence in the tip of my little finger than you
> have in your entire brain. You prove this with every stupid post you make
> since ALL of your posts are stupid.

If idiots were rated on a scale of one to ten, you would rank around
0.1. You clearly regard truth as a dirty word and NEVER say anything
intelligent at all...
....and you're so stupid and brainwashed you still look for atheists
under your bed every night.....


HAHHAHHAHAA! WHAT A REAL IDIOT YOU ARE HARNAGEL!.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 2:41:12 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> If idiots were rated on a scale of one to ten, you would rank around
> 0.1.

No answer to the facts, only personal attack = dishonesty/

> You clearly regard truth as a dirty word and NEVER say anything
> intelligent at all...

Since you reject anything that describes how the universe really works,
you have to say this to salve your ego.

> ....and you're so stupid and brainwashed you still look for atheists
> under your bed every night.....

And you're so stupid and auto-brainwashed that you look for God under
your bed every night :-))

> HAHHAHHAHAA! WHAT A REAL IDIOT YOU ARE HARNAGEL!.

Since you stupidly reject anything that describes how the universe really
works, you have to say this to salve your ego. How pitiable.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 06/08/16 04:33, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 04.08.2016 22:52, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>>> A lot of 'such experiments' have been funded.
>>> Here are a few examples:
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
>>> All these experiments had the potential to falsify SR/GR.
>>
>> Paul, why don't you give up posting this list of silly indirect
>> experiments that nobody with any intelligence would consider seriously
>> for one moment. It is well known that anything which appears to support
>> Einstein will be snapped up by the dingelberry controlled journal system
>> and published without question.
>
> It is remarkable that somebody are so unbelievable naive
> that they don't understand that they are making
> gigantic fools of themselves by claiming that all physicists are
> "without any intelligence", and all experiments testing SR/GR
> are faked.
>

> Henry, you can kick and scream all you want,

> but the experimental evidence won't go away.
> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

You are really funny Paul. You can see two thousand years of fakery that
is still impressing idiots like you on the TV right now. Have a look at
that moronic statue that is dominating the Olympics Games presentation,
mounted on top of humpback mountain pretending to be a son of some thing
called a god. How many humans without intelligence still believe that
fairytale? No wonder people like you are so easily conned by Einstein.
In reality that statue symbolizes the ignorance and the environmental
and social disaster that indoctrination unleashes wherever it wages its
ugly methods on the minds of innocent kids. Physics has suffered a
similar fate for 111 years.

>> The very idea that TIME is somehow affected by movement or the presence
>> of fields is nonsensical for the simple reason that those entities are
>> defined as functions of time.
>
> The entity measured by clocks has been behaving as
> predicted by GR in all experiments ever performed.
> Here are a few of them:
> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf

Yes, an nice collection of dingleberry 'evidence' that provides fuel for
the conspiracy.

> Henry, you can kick and scream all you want,

> but Nature behaves as she does even if you
> find it nonsensical.

Nature says all speeds must be frame dependent by definition.
Nature says TIME cannot be a function of itself.
Nature says that Einstein was a plagiarizing conartist who did nothing
but rewrite Aether theory backwards....and there is no aether!

>>> Any experiment testing a theory must have the potential
>>> to falsify the theory if the theory is wrong. So any
>>> experiment testing a theory must be an attempt to falsify it.
>>
>> There is only one worthwhile experiment that will reveal the true
>> falsity of Einstein's theories...that of directly comparing OWLS from
>> differently moving sources...
>
> The invariance of the speed of light in vacuum
> has been tested by several experiments.
> Here are a few of them:
> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>
> Ralph, you can kick and scream all you want,
> but the experimental evidence won't go away.
>
>> and guess what? Orbiting stars make
>> excellent light sources for that purpose.
>
> Quite.
> The observed light curves and spectra of binaries are
> in accordance with the predictions of SR/GR.

HAHHAHHAHA! just like LIGO, GPS, SAGNAC, and the MMX, and every other
branch of physics the conspiracy has pounced on, eh?

> The crazy light curves and spectra predicted by emission
> theories are never observed.
>
>> and a study of their apparent
>> brightness variability shows quite convincingly that it is generally not
>> intrinsic but a consequence of their emitted light moving at different
>> speeds towards our planet.
>
> I challenge you to take the a light curve from a real variable,
> and show that it can be a consequence of their emitted light moving
> at different speeds towards our planet.
> AND:
> Show what data you used to produce the light curve.
> (distance, orbital frequency, radial velocity etc.)
> AND most important:
> Show how the emission theory predicts the spectrum of
> the star varies during one period (blue shift, red shift),
> and compare that to the observed variation of the spectrum.

I have already done that. It is explained by ADoppler.

...and your presumed 'short period eclipsing binaries' don't vary in
brightness because, either the contributions from each cancel each other
or they are not what they are assumed to be at all.

> If you ignore the question about the spectrum (which you
> always do by obvious reasons), I will show what the emission
> theory predicts the spectrum should be.

The observed spectrum is a complicated combination of ADoppler and
VDoppler. You know nothing about the former although you should because
the familiar term D/ac^2 applies irrespective of the time interval
considered. This means that it applies on the micro and macro scales,
(although not equally according to BaTh)..
---
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/5/2016 4:17 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> Nature says all speeds must be frame dependent by definition.
> Nature says TIME cannot be a function of itself.
> Nature says that Einstein was a plagiarizing conartist who did nothing
> but rewrite Aether theory backwards....and there is no aether!

This is pretty funny.
Nature is defining now.
Nature is saying what variables of functions are.
Nature is a historian.

[Gary Harnagel]

Let's look at these again:

> > Nature says all speeds must be frame dependent by definition.
> > Nature says TIME cannot be a function of itself.

Ralphie-boy must believe that he is God to tell nature how to behave.

"He is a self-made man and worships his creator." - John Bright

All of this offal came from Ralphie-boy's miniscule brain. REAL scientists
perform experiments to determine what nature says, and nature says neither
of these.

> Nature says that Einstein was a plagiarizing conartist ...

Nature doesn't say anything about plagiarism and con-artistry. Nature only
answers questions posed to it by experiments.

> who did nothing but rewrite Aether theory backwards....and there is no
> aether!

We don't really know whether or not there's an aether, but it is IOTTMCO
that invariant light-speed is a confirmed fact and BaThWater is refuted.
Assuming invariant light-speed is contrary to a classical aether (which
is assumed in LET and made to fit the MMX by proclaiming length contraction).
But denying any measurable property of the aether and taking the MMX results
at face value results in far more agreement with nature than LET.

Actually, Ralphie-boy is the historian, and a rather bad one at that.

"God is omnipotent, but even He cannot change the past. That is why He
created historians." -- Anonymous

[kenseto]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:21:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/29/2016 9:02 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >> Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this medium
> >> > was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = "superfluous" in
> >> > your mind?
> > But his inertial frame has all the exclusive properties of the aether frame.
>
> That's YOUR assertion that those properties are exclusive to the aether
> frame.

The speed of light is isotropic c is exclusive to the ether frame. The speed of light is forced to be isotropic c by definition in any inertial frame moving in the ether.

>
> It's like asserting that having wings is exclusive to angels, and
> therefore hummingbirds are angels.
>
> > So his declaration that the need for the aether is superfluous is laughable.

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:21:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/29/2016 9:02 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> >> Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this medium
>> >> > was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = "superfluous" in
>> >> > your mind?
>> > But his inertial frame has all the exclusive properties of the aether frame.
>>
>> That's YOUR assertion that those properties are exclusive to the aether
>> frame.

>The speed of light is isotropic c is exclusive to the ether frame. The
>speed of light is forced to be isotropic c by definition in any inertial
>frame moving in the ether.

Assertion is not a valid argument. Einstein dispensed with the aether
completely and stated as a postulate that c was isotropic without any
need for any aether.

Also, you never did explain how two inertial frames, moving at .9c with
respect to each other, could be two instances of the aether frame.

[kenseto]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 10:01:55 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>
> >On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:21:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/29/2016 9:02 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >> >> Which is why in his 1905 paper he declared explicitly that this medium
> >> >> > was shown to be superfluous. "Based on the existence" = "superfluous" in
> >> >> > your mind?
> >> > But his inertial frame has all the exclusive properties of the aether frame.
> >>
> >> That's YOUR assertion that those properties are exclusive to the aether
> >> frame.
>
> >The speed of light is isotropic c is exclusive to the ether frame. The
> >speed of light is forced to be isotropic c by definition in any inertial
> >frame moving in the ether.
>
> Assertion is not a valid argument. Einstein dispensed with the aether
> completely and stated as a postulate that c was isotropic without any
> need for any aether.

No idiot moron....Einstein forced isotropic c in any inertial frame by redefining the length of a meter in terms of light speed......1 meter = 1,299,793,458 light-seconds. Gee you are a stupid moron.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:43:59 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 10:01:55 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > Assertion is not a valid argument. Einstein dispensed with the aether
> > completely and stated as a postulate that c was isotropic without any
> > need for any aether.
>
> No idiot moron....Einstein forced isotropic c in any inertial frame by
> redefining the length of a meter in terms of light speed...

No, idiot moron stupid liar, he did no such thing. If you could read,
you would still not know the truth because you can't even understand
what you read. Einstein proposed invariant c as a postulate, which has
been confirmed by multitudinous experiments.

> ...1 meter = 1,299,793,458 light-seconds.

Einstein was dead and buried long before that definition of the meter
came about. Gee you are stupid.

> Gee you are a stupid moron.

Talking about yourself again, eh? Well, that was the only time you have
been right. Gee you are a stupid, ignorant lying moron.

[kenseto]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 11:38:21 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:43:59 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 10:01:55 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >
> > > Assertion is not a valid argument. Einstein dispensed with the aether
> > > completely and stated as a postulate that c was isotropic without any
> > > need for any aether.
> >
> > No idiot moron....Einstein forced isotropic c in any inertial frame by
> > redefining the length of a meter in terms of light speed...
>
> No, idiot moron stupid liar, he did no such thing. If you could read,
> you would still not know the truth because you can't even understand
> what you read. Einstein proposed invariant c as a postulate, which has
> been confirmed by multitudinous experiments.

Idiot the OWLS never been measured.

>
> > ...1 meter = 1,299,793,458 light-seconds.
>
> Einstein was dead and buried long before that definition of the meter
> came about. Gee you are stupid.

Modern SRians knew that P2 is flawed. So in order to save SR they redefined the meter to be 1/299,792,458 light seconds. This circular definition guarantees the P2. Gee you are stupid.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 10:44:28 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 11:38:21 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 8:43:59 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 10:01:55 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Assertion is not a valid argument. Einstein dispensed with the aether
> > > > completely and stated as a postulate that c was isotropic without any
> > > > need for any aether.
> > >
> > > No idiot moron....Einstein forced isotropic c in any inertial frame by
> > > redefining the length of a meter in terms of light speed...
> >
> > No, idiot moron stupid liar, he did no such thing. If you could read,
> > you would still not know the truth because you can't even understand
> > what you read. Einstein proposed invariant c as a postulate, which has
> > been confirmed by multitudinous experiments.
>
> Idiot

Stop degrading yourself by proclaiming you're an idiot, idiot.

> the OWLS never been measured.

Irrelevant, idiot.

> > > ...1 meter = 1,299,793,458 light-seconds.
> >
> > Einstein was dead and buried long before that definition of the meter
> > came about. Gee you are stupid.
>
> Modern SRians knew that P2 is flawed.

Well, YOU are definitely flawed, idiot. All you do is make stupid false
assertions.

> So in order to save SR they redefined the meter to be 1/299,792,458 light
> seconds. This circular definition guarantees the P2. Gee you are stupid.

Only idiots believe that abysmally-stupid canard.

> > > Gee you are a stupid moron.
> >
> > Talking about yourself again, eh? Well, that was the only time you have
> > been right. Gee you are a stupid, ignorant lying moron.

And you still are.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 05.08.2016 23:17, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 06/08/16 04:33, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> I challenge you to take the a light curve from a real variable,
>> and show that it can be a consequence of their emitted light moving
>> at different speeds towards our planet.
>> AND:
>> Show what data you used to produce the light curve.
>> (distance, orbital frequency, radial velocity etc.)
>> AND most important:
>> Show how the emission theory predicts the spectrum of
>> the star varies during one period (blue shift, red shift),
>> and compare that to the observed variation of the spectrum.
>
> I have already done that. It is explained by ADoppler.
>

>> If you ignore the question about the spectrum (which you
>> always do by obvious reasons), I will show what the emission
>> theory predicts the spectrum should be.
>
> The observed spectrum is a complicated combination of ADoppler and
> VDoppler. You know nothing about the former although you should because
> the familiar term D/ac^2 applies irrespective of the time interval
> considered. This means that it applies on the micro and macro scales,
> (although not equally according to BaTh)..

Did you think you could escape by uttering this incoherent nonsense? :-)

I will keep my promise.
Here is what the emission theory predicts the spectrum should be:

According to the emission theory we have:
The brightening (relative apparent brightness) is
the ratio between the time dt during wich an amount of
energy is transmitted from the star and the time dto during
which the energy is received by the observer.
This ratio is:
dt/dto ~= 1/(1 - v/c - (D/c^2)*dv/dt)
where v is the radial speed of the star at the emission of the light,
and D is the distance to the star.
c is the speed of light (relative to the source).

But the ratio between the time dt during which a signal
is emitted and the time dto during which the same signal
is received is the Doppler shift.

So the brightening and Doppler shift is given by
the same equation!
(This is a fundamental phenomenon which will be
valid independent of theory. Newton, SR, ballistic or emission,
it doesn't matter. Brightness variation and Doppler shift
due to radial motion of the star are always the same. )

The term v/c is your "VDoppler"
while (D/c^2)*dv/dt is your "ADoppler".

We will use Delta Cep as an example.
The observed magnitude variation is 0.8, which
is equivalent to a brightness variation of 2.

So according to your theory, the spectral class of
the star should not change, but the whole spectrum
should be Doppler shifted between 0.67 and 1.33.

The observed Doppler shift is varying between
(1-0.7E-4) and (1+0.7E-4).

Your theory gets it wrong by four orders of magnitude.

Bottom line:
The crazy spectrum variation predicted by the emission
theory is never observed.
The emission theory is falsified.
Again.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 06.08.2016 18:44, kenseto wrote:
>
> Modern SRians knew that P2 is flawed.
>

Which means that SR is flawed.
And since SR is a subset of IRT,
IRT is flawed.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 06/08/16 08:12, Gary Harnagel was ignored

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/6/2016 9:43 AM, kenseto wrote:
> No idiot moron....Einstein forced isotropic c in any inertial frame by redefining
> the length of a meter in terms of light speed......1 meter = 1,299,793,458
> light-seconds. Gee you are a stupid moron.

Einstein did no such thing.
The meter was redefined in terms of light speed in 1983.
Einstein died in 1955.

First you claimed that Einstein could read the future.
Now you're claiming that he acted from the grave.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

That is conventional VDoppler (my terminology)

> So the brightening and Doppler shift is given by
> the same equation!
> (This is a fundamental phenomenon which will be
> valid independent of theory. Newton, SR, ballistic or emission,
> it doesn't matter. Brightness variation and Doppler shift
> due to radial motion of the star are always the same. )
>
> The term v/c is your "VDoppler"
> while (D/c^2)*dv/dt is your "ADoppler".
>
> We will use Delta Cep as an example.
> The observed magnitude variation is 0.8, which
> is equivalent to a brightness variation of 2.
>
> So according to your theory, the spectral class of
> the star should not change, but the whole spectrum
> should be Doppler shifted between 0.67 and 1.33.
>
> The observed Doppler shift is varying between
> (1-0.7E-4) and (1+0.7E-4).
>
> Your theory gets it wrong by four orders of magnitude.
>
> Bottom line:
> The crazy spectrum variation predicted by the emission
> theory is never observed.
> The emission theory is falsified.
> Again.

Ah! the voice of ignorance is heard yet again on this NG.

Paul, ADoppler does not continue forever. It affects individual quanta,
which merge into broad energy fronts after maybe a few LYrs or less
depending on what is in the space they cross. Wavelength is an intrinsic
and absolute property of every quantum. Like all lengths, it is
absolute... but it is not permanent.

The point you are missing is that individual 'photons' are emitted over
a finite time, giving them a 'length'. (Do you want to argue over that?)
If the source is accelerating, that length will change by Da/c^2, which
is the same as the brightness equation AND IN PHASE WITH IT.

Since the movement which causes ADoppler does not last as long as that
responsible for brightness variation, the observed spectral line shifts
are due to a combination of both ADoppler and VDoppler (90 deg phase
diff). You can see how they can add together if you run my program
brightness.exe. You can even vary the proportions of each.

[kenseto]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 4:04:34 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 06.08.2016 18:44, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > Modern SRians knew that P2 is flawed.
> >
>
> Which means that SR is flawed.
> And since SR is a subset of IRT,
> IRT is flawed.
>

Flawed logic.....IRT does not say that SR is flawed......IRT says that SR is incomplete. IRT does not say that the speed of light is isotropic c. IRT says that the speed of light is isotropic period.

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 10:01:55 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>>
>> >The speed of light is isotropic c is exclusive to the ether frame. The
>> >speed of light is forced to be isotropic c by definition in any inertial
>> >frame moving in the ether.
>>
>> Assertion is not a valid argument. Einstein dispensed with the aether
>> completely and stated as a postulate that c was isotropic without any
>> need for any aether.

>No idiot moron....Einstein forced isotropic c in any inertial frame by
>redefining the length of a meter in terms of light speed......1 meter =
>1,299,793,458 light-seconds. Gee you are a stupid moron.

No, idiot Ken. The meter during Einstein's time was defined as the length
of a certain platinum-iridium rod in Paris. Later (after Einstein's
death) was it redefined in terms of Krypton-86 radiation and even later
(1983) did the meter get defined in terms of the second.

>> Also, you never did explain how two inertial frames, moving at .9c with
>> respect to each other, could be two instances of the aether frame.

No answer?

[Koobee Wublee]

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 10:12:52 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> When your complaints about relativity are reduced to stating that all of
> the documented experimental measurements are falsified;

Well, your claim is bullshit if you cannot point out experimental results that support only the Lorentz transform but not the Voigt or Larmor’s transform. Name such experiment. <shrug>

> that no experiment feasible up to today could ever achieve the
> sensitivity claimed by the experimenters;

The issue of validating SR is when the observer is moving at a very high absolute speed which is still beyond the technology of today. Since all these experiments focus on the observed, it is so fvcking ridiculous to claim to have experimental results that would distinguish between the Lorentz transform from others which demand the very existence of the absolute frame of reference. <shrug>

> Anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who purports such a systemic and
> widespread scale of lies is in play is immediately and correctly
> assessed to be nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane,
> four spades short of a full deck.

PD, you are so fvcking ignorant! <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 11:33:57 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 04.08.2016 22:52, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> > Paul, why don't you give up posting this list of silly indirect
> > experiments that nobody with any intelligence would consider seriously
> > for one moment. It is well known that anything which appears to support
> > Einstein will be snapped up by the dingelberry controlled journal system
> > and published without question.
>

> you can kick and scream all you want,
> but the experimental evidence won't go away.
> https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

Paul, if you cannot find a single experiment that distinguishes the Lorentz transform from the Voigt or Larmor’s transform, you are the one who is delusional. <shrug>

> > The very idea that TIME is somehow affected by movement or the presence
> > of fields is nonsensical for the simple reason that those entities are
> > defined as functions of time.
>

> Here are a few of them:
> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf

All these experiments support no contradiction, but the issue here is what SR predicts which is not what the experimental results has shown. The Twin paradox can only be resolved from mathematics and not experimental results. Given in real life it is impossible to find experimental results that support nonsense, does Paul understand that? <shrug>

> Ralph, you can kick and scream all you want, but Nature behaves as
> she does even if you find it nonsensical.

Nature has no contradictions. The contradiction can only be found within the mathematics of a hypothesis which is SR in our discussion. <shrug>

Again, does Paul agree with the following Lorentz transform? <shrug>

** dt’ = (dt – v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dx’ = (dx – v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dy’ = dy
** dz’ = dz

Does Paul not agree that we can condense all these equations above into the following as Minkowski had done? <shrug>

** c^2 dt’^2 – dx’^2 – dy’^2 – dz’^2 = c^2 dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2

Or

** c^2 dt’^2 – ds’^2 = c^2 dt^2 – ds^2

Where

** ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
** ds’^2 = dx’^2 + dy’^2 + dz’^2

Then, the equation above can be written into the following. <shrug>

** dt’ sqrt(1 – B’^2) = dt sqrt(1 – B^2)

Where

** B^2 = (ds/dt)^2 / c^2
** B’^2 = (ds’/dt’)^2 / c^2

If Paul does not agree, please show where? If so, the checkmate move is in the next one. <shrug>

Ps. There is no need to sweat bullets. :-) <shrug>

[Paul B. Andersen]

I think you already have set yourself checkmate by using illegal moves.
You obviously don't know the rules of the game.

>
> Ps. There is no need to sweat bullets. :-) <shrug>
>

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Paul B. Andersen]

So SR is based on flawed postulates, but is still correct.
So when SR say that the speed of light in vacuum is isotropic c,
that is not wrong but only incomplete. The complete statement
is that the speed of light is isotropic c, but the speed of
light is isotropic. Period.

Have I got it now?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Paul B. Andersen]

Light is electromagnetic radiation which is Doppler shifted and
brightened according to the same equation.
You cannot change that fact by babbling incoherent nonsense about
photons.

> Since the movement which causes ADoppler does not last as long as that
> responsible for brightness variation, the observed spectral line shifts
> are due to a combination of both ADoppler and VDoppler (90 deg phase
> diff). You can see how they can add together if you run my program
> brightness.exe. You can even vary the proportions of each.

The signal that is emitted during a time dt is received during
a time dto. You have called this phenomenon "time compression",
a good name when dto is shorter than dt. dt/dto _is_ Doppler shift,
it does not matter if you consider the signal to consist of an
electromagnetic field or a bunch of quanta of that field.

The brightening is the ratio between the time dt during which
an energy is transmitted and the time dto during
which the same energy is received, it does not matter if you
consider the signal to consist of an electromagnetic field or
a bunch of quanta of that field.

Brightening and Doppler shift due to the motion of the source
is given by the same equation because it is the same phenomenon.

The crazy spectrum variation predicted by the emission
theory is never observed.
The emission theory is falsified.
Again.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Michael Moroney wrote:

> Perhaps we can create the einstein unit, as a unit of the kookiness of
> physics cranks? For example, we measure Valev as 7.3 einsteins of
> kookiness but Rabbidge only measures 4.9 einsteins of kookiness.

You want to reconsider. There is no reason to insult the man posthumously
(even more than he and we already must suffer from crackpots) by naming what
is essentially a unit of *stupidity* after *him*. If anything, crackpots
should measure *negative* einsteins: the more in denial of experimentally
confirmed theory, the less the value (so Valev could have −7.3 einsteins and
Rabbidge −4.9).

Albert Einstein would measure, of course, 1.0 einsteins on that scale.

But please note that we already have a good measure for stupidity in
sci.physics.ALL, John Baez’ “Crackpot Index”:

<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html>

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[kenseto]

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 7:38:47 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>
> >On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 10:01:55 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
> >>
> >> >The speed of light is isotropic c is exclusive to the ether frame. The
> >> >speed of light is forced to be isotropic c by definition in any inertial
> >> >frame moving in the ether.
> >>
> >> Assertion is not a valid argument. Einstein dispensed with the aether
> >> completely and stated as a postulate that c was isotropic without any
> >> need for any aether.
>
> >No idiot moron....Einstein forced isotropic c in any inertial frame by
> >redefining the length of a meter in terms of light speed......1 meter =
> >1,299,793,458 light-seconds. Gee you are a stupid moron.
>
> No, idiot Ken. The meter during Einstein's time was defined as the length
> of a certain platinum-iridium rod in Paris. Later (after Einstein's
> death) was it redefined in terms of Krypton-86 radiation and even later
> (1983) did the meter get defined in terms of the second.

Idiot....the reason they made these changes is because they knew that using material length to measure length will not give constant c for OWLS. That's why they refused to measure OWLS directly using material length. That's why they came up with the circular definition of 1meter=1/299,792,458 light-second to guarantee the constant light speed in all frames.

>
> >> Also, you never did explain how two inertial frames, moving at .9c with light

> >> respect to each other, could be two instances of the aether frame.

Idiot you don't even know what an inertial frame mean.....inertial frames do not move. Two objects moving at 0.9 c in the ether.....each assumes the properties of the ether mainly:
1. The speed of light in the ether is isotropic c.
2. The laws of physics are the same in every location in the ether.



>
> No answer?

[kenseto]

On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 4:11:14 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 06.08.2016 23:58, kenseto wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 4:04:34 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> On 06.08.2016 18:44, kenseto wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Modern SRians knew that P2 is flawed.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Which means that SR is flawed.
> >> And since SR is a subset of IRT,
> >> IRT is flawed.
> >>
> >
> > Flawed logic.....IRT does not say that SR is flawed......IRT says that SR is incomplete. IRT does not say that the speed of light is isotropic c. IRT says that the speed of light is isotropic period.
> >
>
> So SR is based on flawed postulates, but is still correct.



> So when SR say that the speed of light in vacuum is isotropic c,
> that is not wrong but only incomplete.

No.....in SR c=299,792,458 m/sec. in all frames . In IRT the speed of light is ISOTROPIC in all frames but does not have the same value in different frames because the second use to define the speed of light have different durations in different inertial frames. This means that the IRT definition will include the SR definition for any specific inertial frame and at the same time it acknowledges that the second is not a universal inertial of time and thus the value for the speed of light is not constant at 299,792,458 m/sec.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/7/2016 12:26 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 10:12:52 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> When your complaints about relativity are reduced to stating that all of
>> the documented experimental measurements are falsified;
>
> Well, your claim is bullshit if you cannot point out experimental results
> that support only the Lorentz transform but not the Voigt or Larmor’s transform.
> Name such experiment. <shrug>

Observed time dilation of pions in beamlines invalidates Voigt's
transform, which has no time dilation.

>
>> that no experiment feasible up to today could ever achieve the
>> sensitivity claimed by the experimenters;
>
> The issue of validating SR is when the observer is moving at a very high
> absolute speed which is still beyond the technology of today.

Nonsense. Because SR *clearly* states that all motion is relative,
validating it only requires high relative speed between observer and
observed.

There is no point, logic, or sense to demanding things like "absolute
speed" as a criterion for testing a theory which disavows the thing you
are demanding.

This would be like claiming that a test of viral infection would require
purging the body of evil spiritual humours first.

> Since all
> these experiments focus on the observed, it is so fvcking ridiculous to
> claim to have experimental results that would distinguish between the Lorentz
> transform from others which demand the very existence of the absolute frame
> of reference. <shrug>
>
>> Anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who purports such a systemic and
>> widespread scale of lies is in play is immediately and correctly
>> assessed to be nutso, bonkers, mad, crazy, loony, hysterical, insane,
>> four spades short of a full deck.
>
> PD, you are so fvcking ignorant! <shrug>
>

Who? Your silly hypotheses aren't worth the paper I wiped my ass with
this morning.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/7/2016 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Idiot you don't even know what an inertial frame mean.....inertial frames do not move.

Oh, Ken.
I can't believe you just said something this stupid.

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/7/16 8/7/16 8:25 AM, kenseto wrote:
> No.....in SR c=299,792,458 m/sec. in all frames . In IRT the speed of light
> is ISOTROPIC in all frames but does not have the same value in different
> frames because the second use to define the speed of light have different
> durations in different inertial frames. This means that the IRT definition
> will include the SR definition for any specific inertial frame and at the
> same time it acknowledges that the second is not a universal inertial of time
> and thus the value for the speed of light is not constant at 299,792,458
> m/sec.

Dead in the water, because actual measurements show your claim to be wrong.

The vacuum speed of light was MEASURED to be 299,792,458 m/sec within 1 m/sec AT
ALL TIMES DURING THE YEAR (these measurements were performed before the 1983
redefinition of the meter, and formed the basis for that redefinition). During a
year the speed of the laboratory varies by 60 km/sec relative to ANY "absolute
frame" (hint: earth orbits the sun).

That variation in "absolute speed" DID NOT SHOW UP IN THE MEASUREMENTS. So your
"IRT" is falsified from the start.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/7/16 8/7/16 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote:

>> The meter during Einstein's time was defined as the length of a certain
>> platinum-iridium rod in Paris. Later (after Einstein's death) was it
>> redefined in terms of Krypton-86 radiation and even later (1983) did the
>> meter get defined in terms of the second.
>

> Ithe reason they made these changes is because they knew that using

> material length to measure length will not give constant c for OWLS.

Don't just make stuff up and pretend it is true.

The reasons for the 1983 redefinition of the meter are well known and
extensively documented: the previous definition of the meter had too large an
uncertainty for then-current experiments and measurements, and the redefinition
was needed to reduce the errors intrinsic to an imprecise and irreproducible
definition of the meter.

Your FANTASIES do not correspond to historical facts, or to actual physical
measurements.


Tom Roberts

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 07/08/16 18:44, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> O

>>
>> Ah! the voice of ignorance is heard yet again on this NG.
>>
>> Paul, ADoppler does not continue forever. It affects individual quanta,
>> which merge into broad energy fronts after maybe a few LYrs or less
>> depending on what is in the space they cross. Wavelength is an intrinsic
>> and absolute property of every quantum. Like all lengths, it is
>> absolute... but it is not permanent.
>>
>> The point you are missing is that individual 'photons' are emitted over
>> a finite time, giving them a 'length'. (Do you want to argue over that?)
>> If the source is accelerating, that length will change by Da/c^2, which
>> is the same as the brightness equation AND IN PHASE WITH IT.
>
> Light is electromagnetic radiation which is Doppler shifted and
> brightened according to the same equation.
> You cannot change that fact by babbling incoherent nonsense about
> photons.

Oh you poor old fellow! You have learnt nothing in all the years you
have been posting here.
You are talking about the small amount of brightness variation caused by
conventional VDoppler. That is not distance dependent and is generally
much smaller than that caused by c+v effects. It is also 90 out of phase
from VDoppler.

>> Since the movement which causes ADoppler does not last as long as that
>> responsible for brightness variation, the observed spectral line shifts
>> are due to a combination of both ADoppler and VDoppler (90 deg phase
>> diff). You can see how they can add together if you run my program
>> brightness.exe. You can even vary the proportions of each.
>
> The signal that is emitted during a time dt is received during
> a time dto. You have called this phenomenon "time compression",
> a good name when dto is shorter than dt. dt/dto _is_ Doppler shift,
> it does not matter if you consider the signal to consist of an
> electromagnetic field or a bunch of quanta of that field.

You entirely miss the point again. The ends of each string of waves
associated with each individual accelerating quantum move at different
speeds. In time, those waves all change length according to Da/c^2...BUT
THE PROCESS DOES NOT CONTINUE FOREVER.

> The brightening is the ratio between the time dt during which
> an energy is transmitted and the time dto during
> which the same energy is received, it does not matter if you
> consider the signal to consist of an electromagnetic field or
> a bunch of quanta of that field.
>
> Brightening and Doppler shift due to the motion of the source
> is given by the same equation because it is the same phenomenon.
>
> The crazy spectrum variation predicted by the emission
> theory is never observed.

Of course it is observed. It is a main feature of 'cepheids' (most of
which are not really varying at all). The brightness curve is a virtual
mirror image of the spectral curve. A classic case is RT Aur.

> The emission theory is falsified.
> Again.

Paul, you are too old to change your ways now...or even learn anything
at all. I will just ignore your old fashioned ways and continue on the
path to bringing down the plagiarizing con-artist, Einstein.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 08/08/16 00:41, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/7/16 8/7/16 8:25 AM, kenseto wrote:

>
> Dead in the water, because actual measurements show your claim to be wrong.
>
> The vacuum speed of light was MEASURED to be 299,792,458 m/sec within 1
> m/sec AT ALL TIMES DURING THE YEAR (these measurements were performed
> before the 1983 redefinition of the meter, and formed the basis for that
> redefinition). During a year the speed of the laboratory varies by 60
> km/sec relative to ANY "absolute frame" (hint: earth orbits the sun).

They were, of course, TWLS measurements, which are expected to be
constant for the simple reason that light moves at c relative to its
source (at least initially).

So thanks for supporting BaTh, Tom. You should do it more often.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 08/08/16 00:46, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/7/16 8/7/16 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> The meter during Einstein's time was defined as the length of a certain
>>> platinum-iridium rod in Paris. Later (after Einstein's death) was it
>>> redefined in terms of Krypton-86 radiation and even later (1983) did the
>>> meter get defined in terms of the second.
>>
>> Ithe reason they made these changes is because they knew that using
>> material length to measure length will not give constant c for OWLS.
>
> Don't just make stuff up and pretend it is true.

Ken is basically correct. It was part of the cover-up. After all,
Einstein himself advocated the setting of clocks to lie in his RoS
derivation...the basis of his whole theory.

> The reasons for the 1983 redefinition of the meter are well known and
> extensively documented: the previous definition of the meter had too
> large an uncertainty for then-current experiments and measurements, and
> the redefinition was needed to reduce the errors intrinsic to an
> imprecise and irreproducible definition of the meter.

Note, the definition would be useless if the aether existed. It only
works because light is ballistic. Lengths are commonly measured with
two-way methods but more accurate standards using interferometry could,
I suppose, be classed as one-way.

> Your FANTASIES do not correspond to historical facts, or to actual
> physical measurements.

You should be expert at understanding fantasies...

> Tom Roberts

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 07/08/16 19:27, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we can create the einstein unit, as a unit of the kookiness of
>> physics cranks? For example, we measure Valev as 7.3 einsteins of

>> kookiness but Wilson only measures 4.9 einsteins of kookiness.

>
> You want to reconsider. There is no reason to insult the man posthumously
> (even more than he and we already must suffer from crackpots) by naming what
> is essentially a unit of *stupidity* after *him*.

This NG already has a stupidity index. Its unit is the 'geese' named
after the infamous dingleberry irritant Eric Geese (or Gisse), who was
incapable of learning anything and who was eventually jailed, probably
for being such an embarrassment to the Einstein conspiracy. They had to
shut him up somehow.
I expect Gary Harnagel would be high on their list right now...he rates
about 9.999 geese out of 10....with Moron-y not far behind.

[Michael Moroney]

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 07/08/16 19:27, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps we can create the einstein unit, as a unit of the kookiness of
>>> physics cranks? For example, we measure Valev as 7.3 einsteins of
>>> kookiness but Wilson only measures 4.9 einsteins of kookiness.
>>
>> You want to reconsider. There is no reason to insult the man posthumously
>> (even more than he and we already must suffer from crackpots) by naming what
>> is essentially a unit of *stupidity* after *him*.

>This NG already has a stupidity index.

Yes it does. I now have to agree with Thomas Lahn that there is no need
to insult Einstein by naming the unit after him. I propose that it be
called the "Rabbidge" instead. Also for multiplying factors, instead of
kilo- or mega-, I propose that for this unit only, we call these two
multipliers the "Ralph" and the "RalphMalcolm" respectively. That way we
can state that Henry Wilson measures exactly 1.0 RalphMalcolm Rabbidge
worth of stupidity.

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 7:38:47 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>> >On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 10:01:55 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> >> Assertion is not a valid argument. Einstein dispensed with the aether
>> >> completely and stated as a postulate that c was isotropic without any
>> >> need for any aether.

>> >No idiot moron....Einstein forced isotropic c in any inertial frame by
>> >redefining the length of a meter in terms of light speed......1 meter =
>> >1,299,793,458 light-seconds. Gee you are a stupid moron.
>>
>> No, idiot Ken. The meter during Einstein's time was defined as the length
>> of a certain platinum-iridium rod in Paris. Later (after Einstein's
>> death) was it redefined in terms of Krypton-86 radiation and even later
>> (1983) did the meter get defined in terms of the second.

>Idiot....the reason they made these changes is because they knew that using
> material length to measure length will not give constant c for OWLS. That's
>why they refused to measure OWLS directly using material length. That's
>why they came up with the circular definition of 1meter=1/299,792,458
>light-second to guarantee the constant light speed in all frames.

Nope. It is because they were able to measure time and the speed of light
much more accurately than measuring a physical length. Therefore the
modern definition of the meter is more accurate than any of the old ones.
Since it was well known that the speed of light was a constant at that
time, there is nothing circular introduced.

>> >> Also, you never did explain how two inertial frames, moving at .9c with light=20

>> >> respect to each other, could be two instances of the aether frame.

>Idiot you don't even know what an inertial frame mean.....inertial frames
>do not move.

Stupid Ken, I don't believe you actually wrote something quite that stupid!
Stupid Ken, part of the definition of an inertial frame is this:
"All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with
respect to one another." Stupid Ken, you really don't know what an
inertial frame is, do you?

So as long as my two frames moving at 0.9c are moving with constant,
rectilinear motion wrt each other, they are both inertial.

> Two objects moving at 0.9 c in the ether.....each assumes
> the properties of the ether mainly:

Assertion is not a valid argument. That is not part of the definition
of an inertial frame. At no time is any aether mentioned in their
definition.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 6:55:41 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/7/2016 12:26 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Well, your claim is bullshit if you cannot point out experimental
> > results that support only the Lorentz transform but not the Voigt
> > or Larmor’s transform. Name such experiment. <shrug>
>
> Observed time dilation of pions in beamlines invalidates Voigt's
> transform, which has no time dilation.

How so? <shrug>

> > The issue of validating SR is when the observer is moving at a
> > very high absolute speed which is still beyond the technology of
> > today.
>
> Nonsense. Because SR *clearly* states that all motion is relative,
> validating it only requires high relative speed between observer and
> observed.

That is if you believe in the fantasy world of SR. SR is fudged via mathemaGics from Larmor’s transform. There have been no experiments that distinguish SR from the Voigt and/or Larmor’s (LET) transform. <shrug>

> > Since all these experiments focus on the observed, it is so
> > fvcking ridiculous to claim to have experimental results that
> > would distinguish between the Lorentz transform from others which
> > demand the very existence of the absolute frame of reference.
> > <shrug>
>

> There is no point, logic, or sense to demanding things like "absolute
> speed" as a criterion for testing a theory which disavows the thing you
> are demanding.

Well, PD is ignorant. <shrug>

> This would be like claiming that a test of viral infection would require
> purging the body of evil spiritual humours first.

Bullshit! <shrug>