Re: The "GOODBYE ALBERT" Experiment.

From: Eric Gisse (fsegg_at_uaf.edu)
Date: 10/18/04 

Date: 18 Oct 2004 13:53:04 -0700

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<jnu5n01nirjrqs1coaqqd4d54epf9uin1d@4ax.com>...
> On 16 Oct 2004 17:05:25 -0700, fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Geese, there is nothing smart about learning what is written in a book, just to
> pass an exam. Any fool can do that...and plenty do. Many 'extremist 'yes men'
> often end up with PhDs even though they have no creative ability whatsoever.
>
> Being smart requires an ability to reason beyond what one has been taught.

There is more to math and physics to memorizing equations. Since you
never completed a degree in either, im not surprised to see such an
opinion voiced.

Im also not really amazed you have no single clue about what goes into
a PhD. A cursory chat with any random professor shows that you are
wrong.

>
> >
> >So Henri, where did you go to school?

Well?

Did you ever finish a bachelor's program *anywhere*, and if so, in
what?

> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >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.
>
> You mean you don't know?

Duh.

>
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >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.
>
> The only thing I learnt from that thread is that I'm not the only person who
> thinks you are an idiot.

You were first in line when they were passing out learning
disabilities.

Spelling my name isn't hard.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >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.
>
> Even GB can probably provide enough funding to hit the moon.
>
> >
> >> - and the mirror will reflect back in exactly the incident direction.
> >
> >You have no clue. None at all.
>
> Oh? Please explain?

The stationary corner cube arrays return light on the order of a
photon per second to a stationary ground target on Earth.

Do let us know when you finish writing the proposal.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
>
> The book is on CD.

Pass it out around a local universitie's physics department. Plot the
laughter on a logarthymic scale.

>
> >
> >At any rate, you didn't answer my question. You do not strike me as
> >the type who reads much.
>
> I don't . Too busy trying to educate SRians.

Too busy to read. Gotcha.

>
> >
>
> >> >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.
>
> You don't even understand the experiment or its significance, so don't comment
> Geese. It is Androcles experiment anyway. It is perfectly sound and practical
> right now.

Androcles doesn't do experiments, so I was assuming it was under your
control.

In any event, I won't be holding my breath for a paper - published or
otherwise.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >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.
>
> I probably could not understand the maths of Earth centrism either, when it
> tries to describe the motion of Jupiter's moons wrt Pluto.
>
> ..........but why should I bother?

Intellectual curiosity. To understand why people thought it would
work.

>
> >
> >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?
>
> Geese, when I see stupidiy in the first paragraph, I dont bother to read any
> further. Life is too short to waste time on nonsense.

In other words, you think you already know the answer so there is no
reason to see what other people say.

>
> I accept that light increases speed when falling down a gravity field just like
> anything else. The maths is very simple then. no 'curved space' is required.
> (curved in what, geese?)

Light doesn't increase speed while falling. You agree that the
universe isn't Newtonian, yet you think it is also NOT Lorentzian.
What is it? The c+v viewpoint is a Newtonian perspective, yet
Newtonian mechanics are empirically wrong.

Do you disagree with the equivlance principle, Henri? The frequency
shifts are derived *directly* from the equivlance principle -
acceleration and gravity are locally indistinguishable.

I also see a redux of the "Why?" question, along with the mentality
behind it.

>
> >
> >Do you even read at all? Or is your brain a 1-way communications
> >device?
>
> I don't read. I think.

HA HA HA.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >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?
>
> Geese, why would anyone want to spend a lifetime to studying a stupid theory
> that turns a simple geometric concept into one in which light speed always
> remained constant at c?

What makes you think it takes a lifetime? Can I interpet it to mean
you have been attempting to study it your whole life and you still
have no fucking clue as to what GR is?

> ....Far easier to stick with Euclidean geometry and the truth.

Euclidian geometry is wrong. Ask a surveyor.

>
> I once proposed a geometry that would make the density of matter constant
> throughout the universe. It is quite possible.... and it leads to astonishing
> results. Why don't you devote your life to worshipping 'Wilson's constant
> density theory' rather that Einsteiniana?

For the simple reason that your theory is wrong. Furthermore, what I
devote my life to is not going to be influenced by a crackpot aussie.

>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
>
> Manifolds are not necessary if one accepts that light speed is not constant.
>
> Why try to make the univerese hareder to understand than it is already?

Geometry has uses outside of GR. Too bad you are too shortsighted to
understand why. I would point you to a few books, but since you don't
read, I won't bother.

>
> >
> >Have you ever passed linear algebra?
>
> You're a troll, Geese.

What's worse? The troll or the moron who constantly falls for it?

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >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.
>
> .....All big words from a little boy who obviously ain't goin' nowhere fast.

Explain them using the c+v theory of light instead of whining about my
supposed non-progress.

>
> >
> >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.
>
> No Geese. Experiment and theory show that light speed is c relative to its
> source.

Liar.

> The task now its to burn the last 100 years of physics books and start all over
> again.

Idiot.

>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 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.
>
> The theory is not used anywhere. It is completely unimportant. It is an
> exercise in self-delusion, like any religion.

Liar.

The work that is done at UAF includes auroral research. The motion
electrons exhibit is relativistic. Would you like to argue the point
with any of the researchers here? I would be greatly amused to be
privy to the exchange.

>
>
> >> >
> >> >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.
>
> That's where philosophy overlaps physics.

Physics is testable, philosophy is not. You obviously don't know the
difference.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 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.
>
> The doppler shift is almost the same in ballistic theory, NM and SR, for small
> velocites. The Mossbaeur effect works exactly as it should. The Pound-Rebka
> experiment agrees perfectly well with the ballistic theory.

*snicker*

...and the Compton effect? You are yet to address the Compton effect.
You don't know what it is, and will never know since you don't read.

>
> >
> >Go ahead, explain how your theory is different from Newtonian
> >kinematics.
>
> It isn't very different.

Then it is wrong.

Gravity probe A
NTS-2
Hafele-Keating.

>
> >
> >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?
>
> Just the self satisfaction of kowing that the truth can and will eventually
> OUT.

In other words, nothing.

You haven't the motivation to prove any of us wrong, you just like to
sit and say that you are right by misinterpeting experimental
evidence.

>
> >
> >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?
>
> Since relativity breaks down completely when it tries to describe how light
> travels through space, I don't see why I have to consider it at all.

That is what E&M is for, *** for brains. You know the difference
between modern E&M and SR, right?

[signip]

Quantcast