Re: OWLS Anisotropy Proven Beyond Doubt.

From: Myxococcus xanthus (mold-guardian_at_comcast.net)
Date: 08/26/04 

Date: 26 Aug 2004 00:27:17 -0700

"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<v74Xc.635$GO1.7152844@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> "Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-guardian@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ce5e7813.0408250918.3e71cd5a@posting.google.com...
> | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<1g_Wc.391$VA6.4700163@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> |
> | > The scum that are preventing this from happening are the same scum
> | > that want to appropriate funds for experiments that are unproductive
> | > nonsense,
> | > based on a stupid guess by Einstein and never once tested.
> |
> | Wrong. Source dependency has already been disproven many times over in
> | the laser ranging data.
>
> Wrong. Source dependency has NEVER been disproven in ANY test you care to
> name, which is why I suggested using the ISS and the moon.
>
> Laser ranging is regularly performed not only
> | to the retroreflectors placed on the moon, but to dozens of satellite
> | retroreflectors.
>
> The Earth isn't moving toward the moon, dumbo. How in the hell do you
> disprove c+v if v is always zero? You clearly have no clue what a proof is.
> c+ 0 = c... that proves source independency! Duh!

You are ALWAYS in motion relative to the Moon. The Earth rotates and
the Moon orbits the Earth, so depending on your exact position on the
Earth and the exact relative orientation of the Earth and Moon, you
may at any moment be approaching or receding the Moon by as much as
1600 km per hour (if you happen to be on the Equator and the Moon
happens to be at the horizon).

But even if you live quite far north or south of the Equator, and the
Moon happens to be high up in the sky, there will amost always be a
measureable degree of motion with respect to the Moon.

Remember, laser ranging is capable of measuring distances to the Moon
to within centimeters.

> | http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/mlrs_targets.html
> |
> | These satellites move at velocities of SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND
> | relative to the observatory site.
>
> Pure nonsense. If they did they'd soon crash into the observatory. From an
> altitude of 500 miles and a velocity of 5 m/sec, it would take 500/5 = 1
> minute and 40 seconds. I haven't heard any news reports of satellites
> hitting observatories, but obviously you have.
> Remainder snipped, you haven't a fucking clue.

Are you are claiming that orbiting satellites always maintain exactly
the same distance from an Earth-bound observer?

Amazingly stupid argument, even for you.

Immortal Fumble?

Myxococcus xanthus

Quantcast