Re: How can DHRs be This Stupid?

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 09/17/04 

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:49:50 GMT

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:00:56 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:

>In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
><H@.>
> wrote
>on Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:40:12 GMT
><62rak05su5laqebvi1sg68mnn6et2hf09r@4ax.com>:
>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 23:58:09 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>> <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics.relativity, David Evens
>>><devens@technologist.com>
>>> wrote
>>
>>>>>I read enough.
>>>>>It is written by a female anyway.... say no more.
>>>>
>>>> My goodness, THAT'S one of unusually profound ignorance, since rather
>>>> a lot of the BEST work in astronomy and astrophysics has been done by
>>>> women.
>>>
>>>Not to mention Madam Curie in nuclear physics, Lady Ada (I would
>>>forget her last name), and a few others.
>>
>> Curie's husband was the brains. She had bigger tits and was better at public
>> relations.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>There is no point, Henry.
>>>>>>You know that there is no way you can escape from the fact
>>>>>>that the spectra of these stars show that they are unstable,
>>>>>>pulsating stars.
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Henry, as you are well aware, sticking your fingers in your ears and
>>>> screaming "I can't HEAR YOU!" is n ot a valid mode of rational
>>>> argument.
>>>
>>>Indeed. Pick one.
>>>
>>>[1] Crab Nebula.
>>>[2] Earthbound muon detection.
>>>[3] Design of GPS satellites.
>>>[4] Design of particle accelerators.
>>>[5] Mercury's orbit.
>>>[6] Starlight deflection during solar eclipse.
>>>
>>>There's others, but these come to mind.
>>
>> Ghost, all these have been explained on non-relativistic grounds.
>> There is absolute no evidence that supports the second postulate.
>
>Did you have a Webpage to show all these?
>
>>
>> Nobody has ever measured OWLS, so don't make stupid claims about
>> a theory that is at best a rehash of LET and at worst, plain nonsense.
>
>I'd say the Crab Nebula is a fairly good approximation of
>a measurement, based on the data here today (which is all
>one can say anyway). It's sure obvious a star went bang... :-)
>
>If you want a more contemporary supernova, I'd have to look,
>but they'll show similar results; in fact we see supernovae
>in other galaxies all the time, AIUI.
>
>Since the nearest galaxy is some millions of lightyears away,
>there are some issues that can't be resolved in the
>c' = c+v regarding these observations.

Do you mean to say that someone has seriously considered c+v?
Surely this person is a traitor to the Ensteinian cause.
Ostracize him immediately!

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> >And we both know that the ballistic theory predicts
>>>>>>> >that just about all close binaries should be variables.
>>>>>>> >But few of them are.
>>>>>>> >So we both know that these predictions of the ballistic
>>>>>>> >theory are wrong.
>>>>>>> >Don't we, Henri?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't repeat this rubbish Paul.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is: A.sin(t/T)+A.sin(pi+t/T) ??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You know you cannot escape from this, Henri.
>>>>>
>>>>>You cannot escape by continually refusing to answer, Paul.
>>>>
>>>> How is not answering a random, irrelevant question pretended to be an
>>>> attempt at escaping something?
>>>
>>>A.sin(t/T) + A.sin(pi+t/T) = 0 anyway, if T != 0.
>>>Was there a point here?
>>
>> Why would T=0 Ghost.
>> Crikey! The mind boggles!
>
>Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your expression, then, but

T is period.

>
>sin(theta) + sin(pi * theta)
>
>is mathematically 0.

That's correct. When you plot it you get a straight line.

>>
>> ..and yes there was a point.
>>
>> ..that being, '0'
>>
>> Please tell Andersen, the fairyman.
>
>Yes of course, it's just so obvious that relativity is just dead wrong.
>No experiments so far have refuted it. :-P

Variable star data refutes it.
The MMX refutes it.
The atmospheric muon phenomenon, refutes it.
The fact that a vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames, refutes it.
The fact that dolphins have devised an exact replica of SR based on the speed
of sound under water, refutes it.
The fact that the theory only works if the circularity of Einsteinian clock
synching is used, refutes it.
 
Common sense refutes it.

>
>>
>>>
>>>[rest snipped; I wouldn't know helium valves from heart valves :-) ]
>>
>>
>> HW.
>>
>> www.users.bigpond.com

HW.

www.users.bigpond.com

Quantcast