Re: The "GOODBYE ALBERT" Experiment.

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 10/19/04 

Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:37:37 GMT

On 18 Oct 2004 13:53:04 -0700, fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote:

>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.

Geese, I have two separate science degrees, one of which included five years of
applied maths.

>
>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.

Geese, PhD student rarely fail because it reflects badly on their suprervisors
if they do.
PhD graduates are generally useless.

>
>>
>> >
>> >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.

Is that irrespective of source intensity, Geese? :) ) Hahahah!

>

>> >*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.

It isn't written for physicists. It's for people who don't understand what
physics is.

>

>> >> 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.
>

>> >> 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.

There is overwhelming evidence that in a complete vacuum, the speed of light
is source and observer dependent.

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

Yes, geese. Go sit on the moon and watch the Earth expanding at g!

posting.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.

Surveying uses TWLS.

>
>>
>> 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.

It's as good a theory as GR.

>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.

'Curved space', my arse!

>>
>> .....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.

Everything matches the ballistic theory.

>
>>
>> >
>> >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.
>
m
>> >
>> >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.

Bad language will not get you anywhere Geese.

>
>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.

No Geese, I know that 'gamma' comes into charged particle movement.
That ws known before SR.

>> >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.

I know what the Compton effect is Geese. Enery anbd momentum balance after a
particle/particle collision.
I cannot see how it violates the BT.

>
>>
>> >

>
>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.

Geese, why should light from differently moving stars ever end up traveling at
the same speed across space?

When you discover the answer, please inform Andersen.

>>
>> 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?

Give up Geese.

>
>[signip]

HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm