Re: The "GOODBYE ALBERT" Experiment.

From: Eric Gisse (fsegg_at_uaf.edu)
Date: 10/17/04 

Date: 16 Oct 2004 17:05:25 -0700

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<obm0n011ot369kuqvj8nns5l0kluiot9lv@4ax.com>...
> On 14 Oct 2004 16:42:20 -0700, fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>
> >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<2mqsm09u02r5p24n1n9rgrduhsdkf9g7oq@4ax.com>...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why do you think I watch Uncle Al's progress with more than idle
> >> >> >interest?
> >> >>
> >> >> The only direction Al progresses is further up his arse.
> >> >
> >> >No, you goddamn fool.
> >> >
> >> >Why do you think it is that I would think Uncle Al has something
> >> >promising and you do not? There is no physicist cabal going on here,
> >> >Al is an organic chemist, im training to be a physicist. My interest
> >> >in experiments is always merit-based.
> >>
> >> My advice is to give up Geese. You don't have the attitude or aptitude.
> >
> >Attitude : Yes.
> >Aptitude : Most likely. Won't know till I get there.
>
> I've already been and done it so I know I have both. That is also quite evident
> from my posts.. eh?

Your posts indicate that you are stupid. I would be embarassed to have
you as a professor. I have had professors that I don't think belong in
the classroom, but I have never had a professor I was genuinely
embarassed to have.

Pick any one of my physics undergrad classmates, they are all smarter
than you.

So Henri, where did you go to school?

>
> >
> >At any rate, you didn't answer my question. Why is it that I think Al
> >has something interesting and you don't? If either of you are right,
> >physics gets broken in interesting ways. Al moreso than you, because
> >if Al is right physics is broken in a way that it has never been
> >broken before.
> >
> >> What the *** is a chemist doing on a physics group, anyway?
> >
> >Ask him, not me.
>
> What is Al trying to prove? I've forgotten.

Ask him, not me.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Unfortunately, I highly doubt Androcles has came up with anything of
> >> >> >worth. He appears to have no analytical ability.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bounce light off the moon from a moving satellite.
> >> >> What is wrong with that?
> >> >
> >> >It is rather unfeasible. Returned photons to a stationary ground
> >> >target are on the order of photons per second.
> >>
> >> Geese, it has already been done.
> >
> >Then there is no reason to do it again. Go read the reference and stop
> >proposing a repeat experiment.
>
> It isn't the same experiment, goose.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fd0fc2fa.0410131817.6550c601%40posting.google.com

Then don't say that it is.

>
> >
> >My point was that if its only photons per second on a ground target,
> >do you really think it would be that easy to task 2 sattelites to do
> >that in orbit?
>
> No harder than 'star wars'. The moon is a pretty big target.

Star wars didn't work.

> - and the mirror will reflect back in exactly the incident direction.

You have no clue. None at all.

>
> >
> >>
> >> Please geese, don't try to behave like a physicist. You really ARE hopeless.
> >
> >What do you know about being a physicist, Henri? Seriously...
> >
> >When was the last time you had enough intellectual curiosity to open a
> >book that wasn't required for job or school?
>
> Actually, goose, I have just written a book for school kids and interested
> laypeople called "what exactly IS Physics?".
> Send me $10 and I'll Email it to you..

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fd0fc2fa.0410131817.6550c601%40posting.google.com

*snicker* Have you gotten a publisher? Please don't diminish my
respect for Austrailia as a 1st world nation.

At any rate, you didn't answer my question. You do not strike me as
the type who reads much.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Please tell us why it should not discriminate between light traveling at c+v
> >> >> and c-v.
> >> >
> >> >You would need a companion sattelite or have it bounce to a ground
> >> >target. Have fun setting that one up.
> >>
> >> I suggested the best setup is to use two geo-stationary satellites on opposite
> >> sides of the Earth.
> >> That is not difficult.
> >
> >Then arrange to have the experiment done. I won't try to stop you.
> >Since you have obviously put much thought into this, I won't even
> >question your statement of 'not difficult'.
> >
> >Oh, right. Others do the work for you, it is merely your 'job' to
> >provide the ideas.
>
> I cannot do it Geese. Not enough money. I'll have to ask the Chinese.

Do let us know if your proposal isn't laughed at.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Feel free to try though. I would be the last one to stop you from
> >> >actually doing an experiment, the ball *is* in your court. I have
> >> >nothing to gain for keeping special and general relativity.
> >>
> >> You haven't.. nor does physics, in general
> >
> >Good...you see that, at least. So why keep it? Math is hard, as you
> >know. GR math is harder. Differential Geometry for me this spring :D
>
> GR maths is impossible because it is analogous to earth centrism. It tries to
> create a geometry that will maintain a constant c under all circumstances.
> Light speed is c relative to its source but nothing else. Light speed will also
> change in a gravity field like matter does.
>
> GR is plainly an exercise in sheer stupidity.
> .....all it ever does is make a lot of pseudo scientists feel very smug.

OOooh. I think I see your problem with GR - you couldn't understand
the math.

Tell me Henri, how long ago was it when you last tried to understand
GR? Did you ever read the little box about "ict" in Misner, Thorne,
and Wheeler that I pointed out to you?

Do you even read at all? Or is your brain a 1-way communications
device?

>
> >
> >>
> >> >In fact,
> >> >if Newtonian kinematics reigned supreme the math would be much easier.
> >> >GR is rather difficult to learn inbetween my course load right now
> >>
> >> Of course GR is difficult. So is Earth centrism.
> >
> >Earth centerism is rather easy, but wrong.
>
> I suppose you are a flat-earther, eh geese?

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fd0fc2fa.0410131817.6550c601%40posting.google.com

You are unable to distinguish between the understanding of an idea and
belief in an idea. I understand the idea, but I do not believe in it.
Is this another case of you being unable to distinguish between
fantasy and reality?

>
> >
> >>
> >> Einstein concocted a geometry that would make light speed always equal c. Do
> >> you think that is (1) easy?, (2) an indication that he was insane?
> >
> >1) No. Math is hard, especially differential geometry. Do you know how
> >hard differential geometry is? No, you don't. I suspect you have never
> >even taken a 300 level math class [read: linear algebra and up].
>
> I always came top in geometry. It's my speciality.

Im talking about things like manifolds and vector spaces, not
highschool geometry.

Have you ever passed linear algebra?

>
> >
> >2) No. It fits experimental evidence - despite your fits to the
> >contrary.
>
> Bull!!!

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html

Mossbauer effect.
Gravitational Lensing. Re: Eddington's expedition, along with strong
and weak lensing.
Black holes.
Decay of pulsar orbits.

This is why you are not a scientist. Your set view of the world
diverges from how it actually happens to be when it is put against
experiment.

>
>
> >> >>
> >> >> SR is nothing but a disguised form of aether theory. We know that Geese. ...and
> >> >> we also know there is no aether.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. SR needs no aether nor does it postulate aether.
> >>
> >> SR does not need an aether because Einstein devised his clock synching method
> >> to make is superfluous.
> >>
> >> But SR breaks down when it tries to explain how light travels through space.
> >
> >That is because it doesn't explain 'how' or 'why'. Very good Henri,
> >you realise what SR can't do.
>
> Geese, I'll tell you a secret, RELATIVITY EXPLAINS NOTHING!

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fd0fc2fa.0410131817.6550c601%40posting.google.com

So what if it "explains" nothing? It is a good enough model. Everyone
with some education in modern physics knows that Relativity isn't the
theory of everything, we have some way to go. But until there is an
empirical contradiction within the theory or a contradiction with
experiment it will stand.

>
> >
> >>
>
> >> >No reason, other than it does. Why do you continue to be fixated on
> >> >questions of "why" ? I acknowledge their use - only when they can be
> >> >answered.
> >>
> >> Geese, do you have any proof that all light travels through completely empty
> >> space at the same speed.
> >
> >References have been provided for you time and again. I will not do
> >your research for you. Entering a few choice words into google will
> >get you what you need. I assume you live within a decent distance of a
> >university library.
> >
> >> If so, please explain the mechanism.
> >
> >I can't. That is just how the universe is.
>
> Is what?
> SR has no answer to the question. It breaks down.

Again, so what if it doesn't? Theories don't have to answer the "Why?"
question.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Which one changes speed, Geese?
> >> >
> >> >Neither.
> >>
> >> Ah, more fairies at work!
> >
> >The universe is not Newtonian, haven't you noticed? There are no
> >faeries!
>
> I know that. ..but SRians don't

Mossbauer effect, Compton effect. Go ahead, explain them using your
"c+v" theory of light.

Go ahead, explain how your theory is different from Newtonian
kinematics.

Go ahead, keep using the word 'SRians' like it is an insult - noone
cares except for those who are too inept to understand the theory.

Tell me Henri, what progress have you made regarding any of the
experiments that you and Androcles have proposed?

Androcles himself has said [*snicker*] that some can be done on small
scale. Optical benches aren't expensive.

Tell me Henri, are you yet finished with using your theory
defensively? If it is so goddamn revolutionary it should predict
something novel and henseforth undiscovered. Or is it true when I say
you lack the intellectual curiosity required to use your theory in a
way that isn't purely directed towards attacking relativity - a theory
you do not appear to be capable of understanding?
[signip]

Quantcast